JWALA MAHILA SAMITI,121 AB SCHEME NO 54 ,VIJAY NAGAR INDORE vs. CIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

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

248 of the paper book dated 17.09.2025. 2.7 Thereafter the assessee society made a detailed submission in support along with the requisite documentary evidences at page 1 to 122 of paper book dated 17.09.2025 before the Ld. CIT(E). 2.8 That however the Ld. CIT(E) by the “impugned order” has rejected the application made for final approval

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY SHUKLA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Sanjay Shukla, Acit Central Circle 2, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit Central Circle 2, Shri Sanjay Shukla, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03..2022 आदेश / O R D E R

condone the delay in filing the departmental appeal and admit the same for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of transportation contractor, handling of steel materials. Return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 filed on 30.09.2013 declaring income of Rs.1

SHRI SANJAY SHUKLA ,INDORE vs. ACIT,CENTRAL-CIRLE-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Sanjay Shukla, Acit Central Circle 2, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit Central Circle 2, Shri Sanjay Shukla, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03..2022 आदेश / O R D E R

condone the delay in filing the departmental appeal and admit the same for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of transportation contractor, handling of steel materials. Return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 filed on 30.09.2013 declaring income of Rs.1

SHRI GYANENDRA SINGH JADON,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Gyanendra Singh Jadon Dcit-1(1) M-4, Radio Colony, Bhopal बनाम Indore /Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aespj9459E Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri Aditya Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

delay is condoned and appeal was proceeded for hearing. 3. Precisely stated the facts are such that a search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted at the premises of one Shri Mukesh Sharma on 21.07.2008 wherein certain documents were seized on the basis of which it was inferred that Shri Mukesh Sharma was a contractor-cum-liasoning agent

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

248 (SC). The learned counsel also submitted that even in the matter of search case where penalty is levied under Explanation SA to section 271 (1)(c), following decision of CIT v. Manjunath Cotton Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITI< 5(;5 (Karnataka) , it has been held that the show cause notice under section 274 was defective as it does

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

248 (SC). The learned counsel also submitted that even in the matter of search case where penalty is levied under Explanation SA to section 271 (1)(c), following decision of CIT v. Manjunath Cotton Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITI< 5(;5 (Karnataka) , it has been held that the show cause notice under section 274 was defective as it does

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

248 (SC). The learned counsel also submitted that even in the matter of search case where penalty is levied under Explanation SA to section 271 (1)(c), following decision of CIT v. Manjunath Cotton Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITI< 5(;5 (Karnataka) , it has been held that the show cause notice under section 274 was defective as it does