SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

condonation of delay, wherein appeals were filed beyond the period prescribed. The assessee had filed appeals against the order passed under section 154 of the Act, hence the time period of appeals filed by assessee before the CIT(A) have to be computed from the date of order passed under Page 17 of 23 M/s. Supreme Transport Company

SHRI DANDI SEWA ASHRAM,ONKARESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION , BHOPAL

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

154 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer disallowing the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act. The AO has in his order has stated that the assessee has filed a belated return on 30.03.2018 for the said assessment year, however, has not fled the audit report in Form 108. Accordingly. the AD rejected the claim off exemption

M/S. DIASPARK INFOTECH PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE NFAC ,NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & T.R. Senthil Kumar

condoning the delay, despite having sufficient reasons. It is submitted that immediately on receipt of order under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed a rectification application under section 154, but the same was pending before the CPC. As there was no fruitful results received from the CPC, the assessee filed statutory first appeal with delay

M/S. M. LODHA IMPEX,RATLAM vs. THE ITO-1, RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 185/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S.M.Lodha Impex, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 117-118, Manak Chowk, Ward 1, Ratlam. Ratlam.

154, 155 [, 158BFA], [sub-section (1A) of section 201, sections 210, 211, -: 28 :- M.LODHA IMPEX,RATLAM. 234A, 234B, 234C [, 234E]], [270A] 271 and 273 or otherwise), general or special orders in respect of any class of incomes [or fringe benefits] or class of cases, setting forth directions or instructions (not being prejudicial to assessees) as to the guidelines, principles

M/S HOPE TEXTILES LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

154 of the Act. 3. Against this the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the submissions dismissed the appeal by observing as under: “The assessee is claiming interest on interest on two grounds namely there was inordinate delay by the department in issuing the refunds to the assessee and also because the ratio

M/S HOPE TEXTILES LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

154 of the Act. 3. Against this the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the submissions dismissed the appeal by observing as under: “The assessee is claiming interest on interest on two grounds namely there was inordinate delay by the department in issuing the refunds to the assessee and also because the ratio

M/S HOPE TEXTILES LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

154 of the Act. 3. Against this the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the submissions dismissed the appeal by observing as under: “The assessee is claiming interest on interest on two grounds namely there was inordinate delay by the department in issuing the refunds to the assessee and also because the ratio

VIJAY KUMAR PAREKH,INDORE vs. WARD1(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivijay Kumar Parekh Ito-Ward -1(1) 406-407 Apollo Tower, 2Mg Indore Road Vs. Indore-452001 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afkpp 3277M Assessee By Shri Abhinava Jain & Sudhir Padliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2024

condoning inordinate delay of 3189 days for which no cogent reason has been given. Therefore, appeal stand dismissed in limine in view of provision of section 249 (3) of Income tax Act, 1961 read with Faceless Appeal Scheme 2020 Paragraph 5(1)(ii) 8. As a result, appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 is dismissed in limine.” Page 7

MOHAN BHAWNANI,INDORE vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

154 where the only reason for passing such order was charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B, which is debtable in nature (Tax Effect 10,45,950/-) 5. Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) was unjustified in not considering the fact that if the interest u/s 234A & 234B is not charged while passing the assessment order it means that assessing

MOHAN BHAWNANI,INDORE vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

154 where the only reason for passing such order was charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B, which is debtable in nature (Tax Effect 10,45,950/-) 5. Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) was unjustified in not considering the fact that if the interest u/s 234A & 234B is not charged while passing the assessment order it means that assessing

MOHAN BHAWNANI,INDORE vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

154 where the only reason for passing such order was charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B, which is debtable in nature (Tax Effect 10,45,950/-) 5. Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) was unjustified in not considering the fact that if the interest u/s 234A & 234B is not charged while passing the assessment order it means that assessing

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH PUAR SON & LR OF LATE TUKOJI ROA PUAR,DEWAS vs. THE PR. CIT-1, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Vikram Singh Paur, Pr. Cit Son & Legal Heir Of Late Shri Bhopal बनाम/ Tukoji Rao Puar Vs. Dewas (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Agdpp8186B Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 .05.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Kul Bharat, J.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Pr. Cit, Bhopal Dated 18.03.2016 For The Assessment Year

Delay condoned. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) passed by the High Court. In view of this, we find no merit in the appeals and special leave petitions. Accordingly, the appeals and special leave petitions are dismissed." [CLPB 12 back side] c. The doctrine

PITAMBER WADHWANI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2017-18 Pitamber Wadhwani, Dcit-1(1) 101, Saakaar Kunj, 3 Indore बनाम/ Shanti Nagar, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aacpw6714B Assessee By Shri Sandeep Garg, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. It further emerged during hearing that the CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first-appeal by passing following order: “Decision on Condonation of Delay: The facts of the case and the grounds raised

HARE RAM MANDIR TRUST,BHOPAL vs. ITO-EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3.2 The Ld. AR then showed us the recovery of demand outstanding notice dated 15.11.2021 wherein for the year under consideration 2014-15 there was a demand of Rs.2,42,240/- as not paid. The Ld. AR then contended that at this point of time and date i.e. 15.12.2021 they became aware

HARE RAM MANDIR TRUST,BHOPAL vs. ITO -EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3.2 The Ld. AR then showed us the recovery of demand outstanding notice dated 15.11.2021 wherein for the year under consideration 2014-15 there was a demand of Rs.2,42,240/- as not paid. The Ld. AR then contended that at this point of time and date i.e. 15.12.2021 they became aware

BALAJI PHOSPHATES LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCITACIT 1(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibalaji Phosphates Limited, Dcitacit 1(1), 305, Utsav Avenue, Indore Vs. 12/5 Ushaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadcb5654R Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 O R D E R

condonation of delay and submitted that there is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) of 1769 days. The assessee has not explained sufficient cause for such delay and has taken excuse of filing petition u/s 154 of the Act which was already disposed off by the CPC on 14.5.2019 within the period of 3 months from

RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 5, SEHORE, SEHORE

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

7. In view of the above, since the the assessee has not offered any explanation about the nature and source of the cash deposits stated above, the amount aggregating Rs. 3,45,00,000/- is to be disallowed under section 69 of the Income tax Act, 1961 as "unexplained investments", to be taxed as per the provisions of Section 115BBE

INDORE CONTRACT BRIDGE ASSOCIATION YEASHWANT CLUB,INDORE vs. ITO ,WARD-EXAMPTION , INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Indore Contract Bridge Cpc, Association, Bangalore बनाम/ Yashwant Club, Race Course Road, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaaai 1652 F Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

7. We have considered rival submissions of both sides. We have also perused the documents placed by assessee before us and observe that the assessee has filed a rectification-application u/s 154 on 20.03.2019 to AO. We further note from a reading of section 154(8) that the AO was having a time-limit of 6 months to pass order