ASHWINI SHRIVASTAVA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-2(5), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiashwani Shrivastava, Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ 169 Crystle Ideal City, 2(5), Vs. Awadhpuri, Bhopal Bhopal (Pan: Aemps0026G) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2025

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal as and by way of Second appeal under the Act. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing No.ITBA/NFAC/250/2023-24/1059975856(1) dated 22.01.2024 of Ld. CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred

SANDEEP KUMAR SONI,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 4(3), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhashri Deepak Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Acyps8020J) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Kumar Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambey Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Avgps0484F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The brief facts leading to this appeal are such that the assessee- individual is engaged in jewellery business the name of M/s Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal. For AY 2017-18 under consideration, the assessee filed return

SHRI DEEPAK SONI, BHYOPAL vs. THE ITO 4 (3), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhashri Deepak Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Acyps8020J) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Kumar Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambey Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Avgps0484F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The brief facts leading to this appeal are such that the assessee- individual is engaged in jewellery business the name of M/s Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal. For AY 2017-18 under consideration, the assessee filed return

MADHYA PRADESH URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(3), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimadhya Pradesh Urja Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Vikas Nigam Ltd, 2(3), Vs. 1 Urja Bhawan, Bhopal Link Road Nos.2, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Pan:Aabcm1097M) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shashank Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1069365385(1) dated 04.10.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year

JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee before us are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

delay is hereby condoned in the interest of justice with respect to the impugned cases listed before us. On merits: 4. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in making and Ld. CIT (A) in confirming addition

JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee before us are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

delay is hereby condoned in the interest of justice with respect to the impugned cases listed before us. On merits: 4. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in making and Ld. CIT (A) in confirming addition

SITARAM MUCHHALA,MARDANA vs. ITO KHARGONE, KHARGONE

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

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 7,12,817/- under section 56, made to the income of the appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC Order dated 13.03.2025 is contrary to law, facts and circumstances

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

47 days was primarily due to non service of “impugned order” which came to their notice as aforesaid. An affidavit in support [Serial No.15637/25] dated 23.09.2025 is placed on record in support of the condonation of delay application of one Shri Sitaram Thakur aged 76 years who is the Secretary of the assessee trust wherein it is affirmed and declared

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

47 days was primarily due to non service of “impugned order” which came to their notice as aforesaid. An affidavit in support [Serial No.15637/25] dated 23.09.2025 is placed on record in support of the condonation of delay application of one Shri Sitaram Thakur aged 76 years who is the Secretary of the assessee trust wherein it is affirmed and declared

SANJAY MUKATI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), MAIN BUILDING INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble\Nand\Nshri B.M. Biyani\Nita No.510/Ind/2025\N Assessment Year:2012-13\Nsanjay Mukati,\N225, Tanki Chowk,\Nbijalpur,\Nindore\N(Assessee/Appellant)\Nito 2(1)\Nindore\Nबनाम /\Nvs.\N(Revenue/Respondent)\Npan: Bcepm6423N\Nassessee By Shri Rishikesh Mishra, Ar\Nrevenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\N11.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N23.12.2025\Nआदेश / Order\Nper B.M. Biyani, A.M.:\Nfeeling Aggrieved By Order Of First-Appeal Dated 13.02.2025 Passed By\Nlearned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Which\Nin Turn Arises Out Of Assessment-Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By Learned\Nito-2(4), Indore [“Ao”] U/S 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [“The\Nact"] For Assessment-Year [“Ay"] 2012-13, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal\Non The Grounds Mentioned In Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).\Nsanjay Mukati\Nita No. 510/Ind/2025 - Ay 2012-13\N2. The Registry Has Informed That The Present Appeal Is Delayed By 31\Ndays & Therefore Time-Barred. Ld. Ar For Assessee Submitted That The\Nassessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported By\Naffidavit; The Affidavit Filed By Assessee Is Scanned & Re-Produced For An\Nimmediate Reference:\Nभारतीय गैर न्यायिक\Nएक सौ रुपये\Nrs.100\None\Nhundred Rupees\Nvijay Dewang\Nindore (M.P.)\Nreg. No. 14494\Nexpiry Dt. 11/09/2029\Ngov\Nof\Nindia Non Noted Registered\Nमध्य प्रदेश Madhya Pradesh\Notary\Nvijay Dewang\Nindore (M.P.)\Nreg. No. 14484\Nexpiry Dt. 11/09/2029\Ned\Nserial No. .......\Ndate..

condonation of delay supported by\naffidavit; the affidavit filed by assessee is scanned and re-produced for an\nimmediate reference:\nभारतीय गैर न्यायिक\nएक सौ रुपये\nRs.100\nONE\nHUNDRED RUPEES\nVIJAY DEWANG\nINDORE (M.P.)\nReg. No. 14494\nExpiry Dt. 11/09/2029\nGOV\nOF\nINDIA NON NOTED REGISTERED\nमध्य प्रदेश MADHYA PRADESH\nOTARY\nVIJAY DEWANG\nINDORE (M.P.)\nReg. No. 14484\nExpiry

M.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee company is engaged in the Financial Assistance for industrial development and infrastructure. It declared total loss at Rs.1,55,62,351/- in the return filed on 30.09.2015. The case was selected for limited

RAJESH GOURISHANKAR,DEWAS vs. OFFICER, DEWAS

2 SCC 387\nthat whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed\nto each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting\na justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the\nprovision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we\ntake a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal

THE ACIT 1 (1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI ASHOK GOYAL, BHOPAL

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

47,911/- 6. The Ld. AO has mentioned in the assessment orders that a fire broke out in Room No.316 at Aayakar Bhawan on 25.07.1993 in which certain documents pertaining to the assessee were destroyed. Thereafter a separate panchnama was prepared for the burnt documents and the documents saved from fire. The assessee filed writ petition before Hon'ble jurisdictional

THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI ASHOK GOYAL, BHOPAL

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

47,911/- 6. The Ld. AO has mentioned in the assessment orders that a fire broke out in Room No.316 at Aayakar Bhawan on 25.07.1993 in which certain documents pertaining to the assessee were destroyed. Thereafter a separate panchnama was prepared for the burnt documents and the documents saved from fire. The assessee filed writ petition before Hon'ble jurisdictional

ACIT1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI ASHOK GOYAL, BHOPAL

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

47,911/- 6. The Ld. AO has mentioned in the assessment orders that a fire broke out in Room No.316 at Aayakar Bhawan on 25.07.1993 in which certain documents pertaining to the assessee were destroyed. Thereafter a separate panchnama was prepared for the burnt documents and the documents saved from fire. The assessee filed writ petition before Hon'ble jurisdictional

ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI ASHOK GOYAL, BHOPAL

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

47,911/- 6. The Ld. AO has mentioned in the assessment orders that a fire broke out in Room No.316 at Aayakar Bhawan on 25.07.1993 in which certain documents pertaining to the assessee were destroyed. Thereafter a separate panchnama was prepared for the burnt documents and the documents saved from fire. The assessee filed writ petition before Hon'ble jurisdictional

ACIT(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI ASHOK GOYAL, BHOPAL

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

47,911/- 6. The Ld. AO has mentioned in the assessment orders that a fire broke out in Room No.316 at Aayakar Bhawan on 25.07.1993 in which certain documents pertaining to the assessee were destroyed. Thereafter a separate panchnama was prepared for the burnt documents and the documents saved from fire. The assessee filed writ petition before Hon'ble jurisdictional

ACIT 1( 1 ), BHOPAL vs. SHRI ASHOK GOYAL, BHOPAL

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

47,911/- 6. The Ld. AO has mentioned in the assessment orders that a fire broke out in Room No.316 at Aayakar Bhawan on 25.07.1993 in which certain documents pertaining to the assessee were destroyed. Thereafter a separate panchnama was prepared for the burnt documents and the documents saved from fire. The assessee filed writ petition before Hon'ble jurisdictional