M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

153A. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the penalty levied is uncalled for and bad in law and it is prayed that the penalty may very kindly be deleted. (ii) That, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) overlooking the fact that neither the requisite

SMT. MEHA JAIN,JALGAON vs. DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Meha Jain Dcit(Central) 40, Jay Nagar, Jilha Peth Bhopal Vs. Jalgaon Maharashtra (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aeipj 3170 N Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.05.2023

delay of 30 days in filing present appeal is condoned. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT(A) failed to consider and adjudicate upon the additional ground raised by the appellant that under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) is in contravention

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

1 of 24 Shri Vimal Todi ITA Nos. 188 to 190/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 to 2014-15 The assessee paid appeal fee on 02.02.2024 which is evident from challans of payments held on record. However, since the assessee was travelling, the appeal memos could not be signed and filed within 60 days, hence the delay occurred in filing of appeal

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

1 of 24 Shri Vimal Todi ITA Nos. 188 to 190/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 to 2014-15 The assessee paid appeal fee on 02.02.2024 which is evident from challans of payments held on record. However, since the assessee was travelling, the appeal memos could not be signed and filed within 60 days, hence the delay occurred in filing of appeal

SMT SADHNA VOHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO 1(3), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

delay of 7 days is condoned. Appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Ground No.1 is against legality of notice u/s 153C of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written submissions. It was submitted that the notice issued u/s 153C of the Act is invalid and void-ab-initio as there

M/S. GREATER KAILASH HOSPITAL (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, being not maintainable is

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14

section 32 of the Act of Rs. 2,62,09,454/- 4. The appellant reserves its right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by it” Application of the assessee for condonation of delay in the Tribunal and for admission of new/additional grounds of appeal dated 18.11.2022: 3. The ld. Representative of the assessee

M/S PHOENIX DEVCONS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT4 (1), INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is con- doned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits

M/S PHOENIX DEVCONS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT4 (1), INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is con- doned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits

M/S PHOENIX DEVCONS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT4 (1), INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is con- doned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits

NEPAL SINGH KUSHWAH,INDORE vs. CIT(A), NFAC

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshinepal Singh Kushwah, Cit(A), बना B-157, Lig Colony, Nfac, म/ Indore Delhi Vs. (Pan: Akupk8255H) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

section 153A of the Income Tax Act for the same assessment year, the alleged loan of Rs. 40,00,000/-was not added to his income. This indicates that the department itself did not consider the Page 3 of 9 Nepal Singh Kushwah ITA No. 734/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2014-15 loan to be real or valid in the hands of the recipient

NIRMAL RAMTANI,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961 [herein after referred to as the Act for sake of brevity] before this tribunal as & by way of a second Appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-CIT(A)-3, /IT/11185,11214,11217,11221,11225,11227/2019-20 Bhopal Nirmal Ramtani IT(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 & ITANo.634/Ind/2025 A.Ys

SHRI KAMAL KISHORE KOTWANI,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.(Ss)A. Nos. 186 To 190/Ind/2016 & I.T.A.No 1019/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2000-01 To 2004-05 & A.Y. 2006-07 Shri Kamal Kishore Kotwani, Vs. Acit. Prop.M/S. K.K.Enterprises, 1(2), 192, Prabhu Nagar, Idgah Bhopal Hills, Bhopal अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Abjpk1966H

delay of two days is condoned. Apppeals are taken up for hearing. 4. First, we take up I.T.(SS)A.No. 186/Ind/2016 pertaining to the assessment year 2000-01 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI OMPRAKASH DHANWANI, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 on 28.3.2013, made an opinion that as for these two assessment years books of accounts were found defective and not reliable, same methodology should be adopted for Assessment Year 2012-13. Ld. A.O. accordingly rejected the book results and estimated the income by making

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI OMPRAKASH DHANWANI, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 on 28.3.2013, made an opinion that as for these two assessment years books of accounts were found defective and not reliable, same methodology should be adopted for Assessment Year 2012-13. Ld. A.O. accordingly rejected the book results and estimated the income by making

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI OMPRAKASH DHANWANI, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 on 28.3.2013, made an opinion that as for these two assessment years books of accounts were found defective and not reliable, same methodology should be adopted for Assessment Year 2012-13. Ld. A.O. accordingly rejected the book results and estimated the income by making