M/S NEO SACK LTD. vs. THE ACIT 4(2),

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing No

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

section is not a matter of right for the party who pleads the condonation but it depends on the discretion of the Court. The Court must be satisfied that the delay is caused due to a genuine reason. It is sufficiency of the cause which counts and not length of delay. 10. In view of the above legal position

AATMA PRAKASH MENTAL HEALTH FOUNDATION,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaatma Prakash Mental Cit (Exemption), Health Foundation, Bhopal बनाम/ 738, Nehru Nagar, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aaoca9170A Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta & Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

delay is condoned that will be an opening for such kind of litigations before this appellate forum and therefore requested to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the material available on record. It is undisputed fact that the Trust was created on 25-11-1981 and Final registration u/s. 12AB

SHRI DANDI SEWA ASHRAM,ONKARESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION , BHOPAL

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

25,762/-, Hence, there is no mistake apparent from records i.e. Computation of income as well as computation of tax. In view of the above facts, the application u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby rejected." The aforesaid order u/s 154 is hereinafter referred to as the "impugned order made

M/S KALINDI PLACE ,BHOPSL vs. ACIT CPC ,BANGLORE, BANGLORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

delay condoned when the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause that CPC has specifically stated that the rectification rights transferred to jurisdictional assessing officer on 25-6- 2013 Para No 5 -6 pg. no _2 of the appeal order, reproduces as under: “It is observed that the order under section

M/S. M. LODHA IMPEX,RATLAM vs. THE ITO-1, RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 185/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S.M.Lodha Impex, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 117-118, Manak Chowk, Ward 1, Ratlam. Ratlam.

25 :- M.LODHA IMPEX,RATLAM. CIT,Ujjain, for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) to regularize the revised return. The revised return filed by the appellant was not regular return. The revised return has been regularized vide order u/s 119(2)(b) dated 17.01.2008. Therefore, from the date of filing of the revised return till the date of condonation

ARP SECURITIES LIMITED,INDORE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

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

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as against the return income of Rs. 1,25,550/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case and confirmed the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in making an addition on information obtained during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 153A/143(3) in the case

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

25 MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH ITA No. 790&791/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2014-15 justifiable/reconcilable evidences apparently seems not acceptable as per the facts of the case. In other words, no sufficient cause/justification with bonafide proofs has been established by the appellant for the delay in filing these appeals. Consequently, the appellant appeals with inordinate delay in filing the instant two appeals

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

25 MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH ITA No. 790&791/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2014-15 justifiable/reconcilable evidences apparently seems not acceptable as per the facts of the case. In other words, no sufficient cause/justification with bonafide proofs has been established by the appellant for the delay in filing these appeals. Consequently, the appellant appeals with inordinate delay in filing the instant two appeals

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

NETINK TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT/ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshinetink Technologies Dcit/Acit 3(1), बनाम/ Private Limited, Bhopal Vs. Plot No.6, Behind Congress Bhawan, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Pan:Aaecn4127C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

25 of the paper book filed. This person Ajay Neema once had worked for the assessee company as an Accountant and that presently the assessee company has no links with him. Shri Ajay Nema was engaged for the limited purpose only for filing etc. The Ld. AR pleaded that the delay before the Ld. CIT(A) be condoned basis interlocutory

SITARAM MUCHHALA,MARDANA vs. ITO KHARGONE, KHARGONE

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

25,633 for delayed payment of compensation. However, these amounts were not fully disclosed in the return, leading to the issuance of a notice under Section 148, followed by multiple notices under Section 142(1), none of which were responded to by the appellant 6.2 A show-cause notice was issued proposing an addition of Rs.24,79,657 under Section

RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, SEHORE, SEHORE

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

25% of tax on demand income chargeable u/s 115BBE Rs. 51,75,000/- iv Education cess @ 3% on (ii)+(iii) Rs. 7,76,250/- V Net tax payable (ii)+(iii)+(iv) Rs. 2,66,51,250/- vi Penalty leviable u/s 271AAC(1) being 10% on tax payable u/s 115BBE Rs. 26,65,125/- vii Rounded u/s 288A

M/S. GREATER KAILASH HOSPITAL (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, being not maintainable is

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14

section 32 of the Act of Rs. 2,62,09,454/- 4. The appellant reserves its right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by it” Application of the assessee for condonation of delay in the Tribunal and for admission of new/additional grounds of appeal dated 18.11.2022: 3. The ld. Representative of the assessee

NEPAL SINGH KUSHWAH,INDORE vs. CIT(A), NFAC

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshinepal Singh Kushwah, Cit(A), बना B-157, Lig Colony, Nfac, म/ Indore Delhi Vs. (Pan: Akupk8255H) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

section 153A of the Income Tax Act for the same assessment year, the alleged loan of Rs. 40,00,000/-was not added to his income. This indicates that the department itself did not consider the Page 3 of 9 Nepal Singh Kushwah ITA No. 734/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2014-15 loan to be real or valid in the hands of the recipient

RADHAKISHAN,KHATEGAON, DEWAS vs. ITO-2, DEWAS, DEWAS

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

condone the delay as sufficient cause is shown. Hence the appeal is admitted & taken up for hearing. 3.2 The Ld. AR for & on behalf of the assessee has placed on record of this Tribunal a paper book containing pages 1 to 81 & a four pages written submissions in support. Few orders of ITAT are also placed on record

MAHESH CHANDRA AGARWAL,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), DELHI

Appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimahesh Chandra Agrawal, Cit(A), बनाम/ Prop. M/S Swarn Pushp Nfac, Vs. Jwellers, Delhi Sarafa Chowk, Indore (Pan:Aavpa8254B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gowind Rinwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1047981997(1) dated 13.12.2022 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year

ANDRITZ HYDRO P LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 was filed on 30.11.2014 declaring income of Rs.18,14,79,168/- which was set off entirely against the brought forward loss

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