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

234B to the tune of Rs.6,90,327/- (Tax Effect: 6,90,327/-) The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. 3. As the issues raised in these appeals are common and pertains to the same assessee they were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order for the sake

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

234B to the tune of Rs.6,90,327/- (Tax Effect: 6,90,327/-) The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. 3. As the issues raised in these appeals are common and pertains to the same assessee they were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order for the sake

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

234B to the tune of Rs.6,90,327/- (Tax Effect: 6,90,327/-) The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. 3. As the issues raised in these appeals are common and pertains to the same assessee they were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order for the sake

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Vaishali Developers & Income-Tax Officer, Builders, 1(2), बनाम/ 240, M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan : Aacfv7638P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Final Hearing 08.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2024

234B is unlawful and hence, be cancelled.” 2. The registry has informed that there is a delay of 2,425 days in filing this appeal, therefore the appeal is time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay with supporting documents. The documents filed by assessee are scanned and re-produced

M/S RANA & JOSHI BUILDTECH P LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pr. Cit-1 Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (Formerly Known As M/S Rana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) Vs. 218 Civil Lines, Below Dainik Bhaskar Office Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcr9858P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .09.2024

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. The assesse has raised following grounds of appeal: 1.“That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in setting-aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 even

VIPUL JAIN,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, 5(2), INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivipul Jain Ito, 5(2) 18, Ganesh Colony, Rambag Indore Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agnpj8206E Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2024

delay of 129 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 6. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2 That on the facts

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

ZYKA MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, BHOPAL

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: ITA No. 580/Ind/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) 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

ZYKA MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, BHOPAL

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: ITA No. 580/Ind/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) 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

ZYKA MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, BHOPAL

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: ITA No. 580/Ind/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) 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

SANJAY KUMAR BOMB LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI AJIT KUMAR BOMB,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NEEMUCH, NEEMUCH

Appeal is disposed off in effective manner and not as

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisanjay Kumar Bombl/H Of Income Tax Officer, बना Late Ajit Kumar Bomb, Neemuch म/ 18, Bunglow No.41, Vs. Bhuteshwar Mandir Road, Neemuch (Pan: Aappb8200L) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 2.2 That as and by way of an assessment order made u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act the assesee’s total income was computed at Rs.61,52,020/-. Additions were made to the return of income. That the assessment order bears No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2021- Page 3 of 9 Sanjay Kumar Bomb

YOGESH SOOD,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), BHOPAL

In the result we are of the considered opinion that the

234B & 234C is illegal and unsustainable in law and, therefore, be cancelled. 08. That the appellant craves leave to raise additional grounds and/or make amendment in the existing grounds on or before the date of hearing.” 3. Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 06.01.2026 when the Ld. AR for & on behalf

MEWA LAL SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(5), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimewa Lal Singh Ito 2(5) Lig-06, A-Sector Sonagiri Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Angps 1966A Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2024

delay of 166 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 6. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Id A.O. erred in making additions of Rs. 5 ,00,000/-, by just mentioning that the assessee has not furnished any documents to substantiate the source of Investment in Mutual funds, whereas the investment was made

M/S BAGORA DEVELOPERS P LTD ,INDORE vs. THE AIT OSD , INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Bagora Developers Pvt. Acit- Ltd. Indore 34, Revenue Nagar Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaecb6424E Assessee By Shri Siddharth Mahajan & Ashok Mahajan, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2024

condonation of delay and careful perused the relevant material on record. The impugned order was passed by the CIT(A) on 10.02.2020 and limitation for filing the appeal expired on 10.04.2020. Thus, the limitation for filing the appeal was expiring during the Covid-19 pandemic and therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is now covered by the judgment

KAILASH CHANDRA PATIDAR,SHAJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHAJAPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

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

section 249(3) of the Act, for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. It is well-settled law that an appellant is not entitled to the condonation as a matter of right. For an appellant to succeed, the existence of sufficient cause is sine qua non and a condition precedent. It is manifestly evident that this ingredient

KAILASH CHANDRA PATIDAR,SHAJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHAJAPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

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

section 249(3) of the Act, for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. It is well-settled law that an appellant is not entitled to the condonation as a matter of right. For an appellant to succeed, the existence of sufficient cause is sine qua non and a condition precedent. It is manifestly evident that this ingredient