ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

24\nWherein it was held that the length of delay is immaterial once 'sufficient cause' is\nestablished, and the delay deserves to be condoned where circumstances beyond the\nassessee's control prevented timely filing.It was further held that in the absence of\nany deliberate or mala fide intent, substantial justice must prevail over technical\nconsiderations of limitation.\nSimilar view

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

24\nWherein it was held that the length of delay is immaterial once 'sufficient cause' is\nestablished, and the delay deserves to be condoned where circumstances beyond the\nassessee's control prevented timely filing.It was further held that in the absence of\nany deliberate or mala fide intent, substantial justice must prevail over technical\nconsiderations of limitation.\nSimilar view

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

24\nWherein it was held that the length of delay is immaterial once 'sufficient cause' is\nestablished, and the delay deserves to be condoned where circumstances beyond the\nassessee's control prevented timely filing.It was further held that in the absence of\nany deliberate or mala fide intent, substantial justice must prevail over technical\nconsiderations of limitation.\nSimilar view

SMT PUSHPLATA CHANDRAWAT,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CPC , BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Smt. Pushplata Chandrawat, V. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. House No. 34-Bg, Scheme No. 74-C, Vijay Nagar, Indore Pan-Adapc8144L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Anil Kumar Garg & Arpit Gaur, Ca Respondent By: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.03.2023

condone the delay in filing the present appeal. The assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in upholding the action of the AO in making addition of Rs.3,81,960/-, which is quite unjustified, unwarranted, excessive, arbitrary and bad-in-law. 2a). That, the learned

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

24\nWherein it was held that the length of delay is immaterial once 'sufficient cause' is\nestablished, and the delay deserves to be condoned where circumstances beyond the\nassessee's control prevented timely filing.It was further held that in the absence of\nany deliberate or mala fide intent, substantial justice must prevail over technical\nconsiderations of limitation.\nSimilar view

VIJAY KUMAR PAREKH,INDORE vs. WARD1(1) INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivijay Kumar Parekh Ito-Ward -1(1) 406-407 Apollo Tower, 2Mg Indore Road Vs. Indore-452001 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afkpp 3277M Assessee By Shri Abhinava Jain & Sudhir Padliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2024

condoning inordinate delay of 3189 days for which no cogent reason has been given. Therefore, appeal stand dismissed in limine in view of provision of section 249 (3) of Income tax Act, 1961 read with Faceless Appeal Scheme 2020 Paragraph 5(1)(ii) 8. As a result, appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 is dismissed in limine.” Page

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

24(b) as narrated in preceding paragraphs which\nPage 3 of 22\nleads to under reported income in consequence of misreporting\nthereof.\n9. From the above discussion, it can be seen that the assessee\nhas under reported income in consequence of misreporting\nthereof. Hence, the assessee is liable for penalty to the tune of\ntwo hundred percent of the amount

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

24(b) as narrated in preceding paragraphs which Page 3 of 22 Manoj Kumar Gangadharan ITA No. 670&671 /Ind/2024 - A.Ys.2017-18&2018-19 leads to under reported income in consequence of misreporting thereof. 9. From the above discussion, it can be seen that the assessee has under reported income in consequence of misreporting thereof. Hence, the assessee

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), INDORE

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

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

condonation of delay was made by the Assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) but submission were made. The “Impugned Order” is common order on Quantum and Penalty was again emphasised. It was also submitted that there was a non-representation before the Ld. CIT (A). It was then submitted that in the paper book placed on record page

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

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

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

condonation of delay was made by the Assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) but submission were made. The “Impugned Order” is common order on Quantum and Penalty was again emphasised. It was also submitted that there was a non-representation before the Ld. CIT (A). It was then submitted that in the paper book placed on record page

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

BHOPAL SWITCHGEARS (P) LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE D C I T 1(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Bhopal Switchgears P. Ltd. Dcit -1(1) Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaacb 6092 J Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2022

condone the delay and proceed for hearing of appeal. Ground No. 1: 5. The issue involved in Ground No. 1 relates to the disallowance of interest of Rs. 4,90,876/-. During assessment proceeding, Ld. AO observed that the assessee has paid a total interest of Rs. 19,63,506/- @ 24% on loans taken from different persons. Ld. AO observed

SITARAM MUCHHALA,MARDANA vs. ITO KHARGONE, KHARGONE

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

24,79,657/-under section 45, made to the income of the appellant. 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

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

GOVERDHAN LAL YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

condonation of delay (Refer earlier Para). Further, a bare reading of para 4.3 of impugned order clearly demonstrates that the CIT(A) has merely concluded for not interfering with the order of AO and thereby dismissed assessee’s first appeal summarily for non-prosecution but such an order passed by CIT(A) is not in accordance with the mandate

DUGDH UTPADAN SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,BARWANI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, SENDHWA

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for sake of brevity) as and by way of Second appeal under the Act. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-5/1064364953 (1) dated 25.05.2024 of CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as Page 1 of 7 Dugdh Utpadan Sahakari Samiti Maryadit

NILESH PORWAL,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

delayed by 109 days due to illness. The assessee claimed deductions of Rs.42,24,413/- under section 57, which were disallowed by the AO under section 144. The assessee failed to provide supporting evidence initially but later submitted them to the CIT(A) as additional evidence, which were not considered.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned