AATMA PRAKASH MENTAL HEALTH FOUNDATION,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaatma Prakash Mental Cit (Exemption), Health Foundation, Bhopal बनाम/ 738, Nehru Nagar, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aaoca9170A Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta & Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

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 condoned, 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 not mean

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

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

e-proceeding module and stated that:- "01) Demands have been created by CPC u/s 143(1)a for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2017-18.02) Ours is Charitable Trust and 12A/12AA has been granted to us. Copy of certificate from Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal is enclosed herewith. 03) But your honour has calculated the tax on the only Gross

M/S NEO SACK LTD. vs. THE ACIT 4(2),

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing No

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

E R PER BENCH The assessee has filed the appeals for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004, whereas the revenue has filed the appeals for the assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 & 2003-04 and the assessee hasalso filed the cross objections arising out of revenue’s appeal nos. 682 & 683/Ind/2003 for the assessment years

M/S NEO SACK LTD vs. THE ACIT 4(2),

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing No

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

E R PER BENCH The assessee has filed the appeals for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004, whereas the revenue has filed the appeals for the assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 & 2003-04 and the assessee hasalso filed the cross objections arising out of revenue’s appeal nos. 682 & 683/Ind/2003 for the assessment years

M/S PLATINUM HORAZINE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

E R PER O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-II, Indore [hereinafter referred to as the CIT (A)] dated 31.12.2015. This appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2009-10. Which arose out of the penalty order passed M/s. Platinum Horazine Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

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

e) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton Ginning Factory 12013] 359 LTr~ 565. ( Copy

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

e) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton Ginning Factory 12013] 359 LTr~ 565. ( Copy

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

e) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton Ginning Factory 12013] 359 LTr~ 565. ( Copy

M/S C.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-orders dated 31.12.2015 & 23.01.2017 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Bhopal [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arise out of assessment-orders dated 18.03.2013 & 25.03.2015 passed by learned ITO-2(1) and DCIT-1(1), Bhopal [“AO”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2010-11 & 2012-13 respectively

M/S C.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-orders dated 31.12.2015 & 23.01.2017 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Bhopal [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arise out of assessment-orders dated 18.03.2013 & 25.03.2015 passed by learned ITO-2(1) and DCIT-1(1), Bhopal [“AO”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2010-11 & 2012-13 respectively

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 and the appeal prior to amendments also did not make the imposition of late fees by Section 234 E to be ultra vires." 14. The findings of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has also escaped the consideration by Hon'ble ITAT. She accordingly requested that the same may kindly be considered to avoid any miscarriage of justice

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 and the appeal prior to amendments also did not make the imposition of late fees by Section 234 E to be ultra vires." 14. The findings of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has also escaped the consideration by Hon'ble ITAT. She accordingly requested that the same may kindly be considered to avoid any miscarriage of justice

SHRI DINESH NIGAM,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2 (3), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

condone the delay and take up the appeal for hearing. 6. Ground Nos.1 to 4 are inter-connected and are against treating the agricultural land as capital asset. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the statement of facts. The submission of Ld. Counsel in the statement of facts are as under: 1. “The appellant

INDORE PRAGATISHIL SAHAKARI SAKH SANSTHA MARYADIT,INDORE vs. NFAC, DELHI, INDORE

Appeal stand allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2018-19 Indore Pragatishil Income Tax Department, Sahakari Sakh Sanstha Nfa, बनाम/ Maryadit, Delhi Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaaai3124L Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2024

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merit. 4. The assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds: “(1) The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 10,38,997/- being interest received on fixed deposit on the bank as income from other sources. (2) It was proved before

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

section 274(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide letter issued vide DIN 22/1041672758(1) dated 26.03.2022.” 2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned penalty order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act on Page 4 of 22 Manoj Kumar Gangadharan ITA No. 670&671 /Ind/2024 - A.Ys.2017-18&2018-19 06.11.2023 (Form No.35) before

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

e-mail ID as available with the department and the assessee did not respond to the said show cause notice which shows that the assessee might not be aware about the show cause notice issued by the Pr. CIT. The delay up to 30th May 2022 is covered by the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case

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

E R PER T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 28.10.2021 passed in DIN & Order no.ITBA/NFAC/ S/250/2021- 22/ 1036630276(1) by the National Faceless Appeal Centre relating to the Assessment year 2018-19. 2. Sole grievance raised by the assessee before the Tribunal is that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC

SHREERAM CONSTRUCTIONS,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishreeram Construction, Commissioner Of बनाम/ Shop No.2,New Shri Ram Income-Tax Vs. Parisar, Phase I Khajuri Kala, (Appeals) Bhopal, Bhopal (Pan:Abgfs5939P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Govind Rinwa, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of convenience & brevity] before this tribunal as and by way of a second appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1055303506(1) dated 22/08/2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein