BMG CALCUTTAWALA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. AO CPC (TDS), ITO TDS(1) INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed\"

200(3) or 206C(3) of the Act, is inserted by F.A.2012\nw.e.f. 01/07/2012 .Therefore, since both the substantive\nlegislation (section imposing statutory liability as well as the\ncharging section for levy of fees in case of violation of statutory\nliability) were in effect much earlier from the date of insertion of\n200A(3) which is merely a mechanical provision

SATYENDRA KUMAR VYAS,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

section 249 of the\nIncome Tax Act. Meanwhile the appellant was of the opinion that his\ncase was being duly handled with due diligence and care by his\nauthorized representative. It was only when the penalty notices\nwere furnished to him, he came to realize that no appropriate\nresponse was fled during the assessment proceedings and no\nappeal was filed

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

200%\n4,61,860/-\nPenalty leviable (Rounded off)\n4,61,860/-\n(Rupees: Four Lacs sixty one thousand eight hundred and sixty\nonly)\nThis order has been passed after obtaining the prior approval\nfrom the Additional Commissioner of Income tax(IT), Ahmedabad\nas per section 274(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide letter\nissued vide DIN 22/1041672758

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

200% 4,61,860/- Penalty leviable (Rounded off) 4,61,860/- (Rupees: Four Lacs sixty one thousand eight hundred and sixty only) This order has been passed after obtaining the prior approval from the Additional Commissioner of Income tax(IT), Ahmedabad as per section 274(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide letter issued vide DIN 22/1041672758(1) dated

RAMRATI SAHU,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

section 250 had already been passed on 27/06/2024 for Assessment Year\n2014-15. This was the first time the appellant became aware of the said order.\nThe delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor due to negligence, but is caused due\nto bona fide reasons arising from the appellant's age, unfamiliarity with, electronic\ncommunication, and the unfortunate

SHASHI PRABHA SINGHANIA,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER NEEMUCH, NEEMUCH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

section 50C(1) of\nthe Income Tax Act.\n2.7 The assessee vide reply dated 16.02.2021 received\nelectronically on -16.02.20121 stated \"We have gone through\nthe entire sale deed and not in a position that how the\namount of Rs.47,89,200/- for each sale deed has been\ndetermined. The sale deed was executed by us for sale value\nof Rs.36

JABBAR KHAN,DEWAS vs. CIT , UJJAIN

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2009-10 Jabbar Khan, Pr. Cit, Village-Siya, Tehsil-Dewas बनाम/ Ujjain Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Cndpk 0362 H Assessee By Shri Ashok Mahajan, Ar Revenue By None Date Of Hearing 26.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2022

delay is condoned and the appeal is proceeding for hearing. 4. Briefly stated the facts are such that the revenue received an information from AIR that the assessee had made cash-deposit over Rs. 10 lack in bank account during F.Y. 2008-09 relevant to the AY 2009-10 under consideration. Ld. AO formed a belief that the impugned cash

AMEY JAIN,INDORE vs. OFFICER, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2019-20 Amey Jain, Ito 1(1), 127, Anurag Nagar Bh Indore Press Complex, बनाम/ Vijay Nagar, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aqbpj1217D Assessee By Shri Harsh Choukse & Shri Kunal Agrawal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2026

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. Ld. AR for assessee explained following facts of case: (i) The assessee-individual is an NRI. (ii) On 09.05.2018, the assessee purchased a property for Rs. 53,43,000/- from R.R. Jain Infra (PAN: AAQFR9972C

ROOP SINGH TANWAR,DEWAS vs. THE CIT, UJJAIN

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Roop Singh Tanwar Pcit Dewas Ujjain बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Ajtpt 7633 E Assessee By Shri A.K. Mahajan, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2022

delay is condoned and the appeal is proceeded for hearing. 4. Briefly stated the facts leading to present appeal are such that the revenue received an information that the assessee had made large cash- deposit in bank account, accordingly action u/s 147 was taken by issuing notice dated 23.03.2016. In response thereto, the assessee filed a return of income declaring

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. MARAL OVERSEAS LTD, KHARGONE

In the result, the “Impugned

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshideputy Commissioner Of Maral Overseas Ltd. बनाम/ Income Tax- 4(1) Maral Srovar, V & Po, Vs. Indore Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal (Pan: Aaccm0230B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satyajeet Goyal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026

200,00,000 Equity shares at Rs. 10 each 2,00,000 1,50,000 Issued, Subscribed & Paid up 1,53,640 1 153,64,000 Equity shares at Rs. 10 each 489 - Less: Calls in arrear 1,53,151 1 Share application money pending allotment - 18,467 1,53,151 18,468 2. Reserve and Surplus 5,116 - Surplus

AKSHAY ACADEMY,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniakshay Academy Ito, Nfac 32 Kaimaidan Road, Delhi Khasgi Gagicha Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadta8987B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

200 ITD 662. 4. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the assessee did not claim exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act in the return of income therefore, the claim of the assessee cannot be entertained by the AO in absence of revised return of income for making a fresh claim. Ld. DR has further submitted that

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

200\nCTR 265 (Guj)].\nFor and Trading Pvt. Ltd.\nACREATION AND\nINFRAC\nDirector\nO TRADING\nEncl: 1. Acknowledgment of return of income filed on 05.10.2019.\n2. Respondent's ground of appeal.\nco-Departmental Representative,\nDivision Bench,\nIndore\n8.\nBy means of this application, the assessee/respondent has raised\nfollowing ground for adjudication:\n“1. The learned CIT(A) ought to have

SHRI AVIJIT SHASTRI,INDOR vs. THE ITO 4(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

200/-. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 143(2) on 18.08.2010. The case was received at Indore on transfer from ITO, Ward-3, Panipat. The detail questionnaire was issued on 30.08.2011. The questionnaire under Section 142(1) dated 25.11.2011 was issued to the permanent address of the assessee which was received back unserved by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing

HARDA NAGAR BAL VIKAS SAMITI HARDA ,SARSWATI SHISHU MANDIR vs. ITO-1, HARDA, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms mentioned above

200/- made by assessee in bank a/cs during demonetization period and on finding that the assessee has not filed any return of AY 2017-18, issued a notice dated 27.12.2017 u/s 142(1)(i) requiring the assessee to file return of income of AY 2017-18. However, the assessee did not file any return. Then, the AO took assessee

JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MYDT,SEHORE, MP vs. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi / Bank Mydt, Acit-3(1), Bhopal बनाम/ Sehore, M.P. Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaalj0022F Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026

delay in present appeal is condoned. 3. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee is a co-operative bank. For AY 2014-15, the assessee filed its return of income on 28.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 86,90,950/- and subsequently filed a revised return on 15.12.2014 declaring a total income

AATMARAM BARASKAR,BHOPAL vs. AO WARD 5(3), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradaatmaram Baraskar Ito- Ward 5(3) 15, Vrandavan Nagar, Bhopal Ayodhya Bypass, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agnpb 7088C Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2024

section 154 of the Income Tax Act. In the first week of August 2023, I realised that my application for rectification of mistake was not being disposed off and therefore, to safeguard my legal rights I rushed to file the present appeal before Page 2 of 9 ITANo.313/Ind/2023 Aatmaram Baraskar the Hon'ble Tribunal. Due to holidays on 12th, 13th

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI OMPRAKASH DHANWANI, INDORE

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

200/- to Rs. 2,500/- per kg. Accordingly, the AO made additions on account of estimated gross-profit in AY 2009-10 to 2011-12. 3. Against order of AO, the assessee went in first-appeal. The CIT(A), though upheld the rejection of books, but found the AO’s method of estimation of gross-profit as faulty. He made

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI OMPRAKASH DHANWANI, INDORE

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

200/- to Rs. 2,500/- per kg. Accordingly, the AO made additions on account of estimated gross-profit in AY 2009-10 to 2011-12. 3. Against order of AO, the assessee went in first-appeal. The CIT(A), though upheld the rejection of books, but found the AO’s method of estimation of gross-profit as faulty. He made