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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as barred by

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

3 of 8 reasons explained by the assessee in the application for condonation of delay in para 2 of the impugned order as under: “2. In this case as per the facts recorded in the Form 35 the order dated 28.12.2019 was received by the appellant on 28.12.2019. As such the appeal filed by the appellant

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

200/-) The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Appeal No.ITA/80/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 On the facts and the circumstances of the case:- 1. That the assessment u/s 154 is invalid, bad in law and deserves to be quashed. (Tax Effect :10,45,950/-) 2. That

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

200/-) The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Appeal No.ITA/80/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 On the facts and the circumstances of the case:- 1. That the assessment u/s 154 is invalid, bad in law and deserves to be quashed. (Tax Effect :10,45,950/-) 2. That

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

200/-) The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Appeal No.ITA/80/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 On the facts and the circumstances of the case:- 1. That the assessment u/s 154 is invalid, bad in law and deserves to be quashed. (Tax Effect :10,45,950/-) 2. That

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

3) 6. Tax on underreported Income in 2,30,930/- consequence to misreported income (4-5) Penalty leviable at 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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. The averments made by assessee in above application, which are self- explanatory and which do not require repetition, were discussed and the Ld. DR for revenue does not have any objection if the bench condones delay and accordingly left it to the wisdom of bench. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary