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

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3.Since the issue for adjudication in these appeals is identical; they were heard together at the request of parties and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. 4. The background facts leading to these appeals are such that the asesesee was a director

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

Appeals are allowed

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

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3.Since the issue for adjudication in these appeals is identical; they were heard together at the request of parties and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. 4. The background facts leading to these appeals are such that the asesesee was a director

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

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

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

1,00,000/- b)Addition on Account of Undisclosed Salary Income- Rs. 4,80,000/- 03. The Id. CIT (Appeal) has ignored/overlooked to consider the evidences and explanation furnished by the appellant and as such entire order has become arbitrary and baseless which deserves to be quashed. 04. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, and having

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

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 Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee Under Section 253 of the Income

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