M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Delay condoned 2 We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. 3 Pending application, if any stands disposed off.” 11.11 Therefore, in the circumstances and on the facts of the present case and in light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court reproduced

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

Delay condoned 2 We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. 3 Pending application, if any stands disposed off.” 11.11 Therefore, in the circumstances and on the facts of the present case and in light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court reproduced

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

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

Appeals are allowed

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

section 253(5) and the Page 2 of 24 Shri Vimal Todi ITA Nos. 188 to 190/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 to 2014-15 decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, 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

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

Appeals are allowed

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

section 253(5) and the Page 2 of 24 Shri Vimal Todi ITA Nos. 188 to 190/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 to 2014-15 decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, 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

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)

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 after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does

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)

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 after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does

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)

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 after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does

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

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