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

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) Page 2 of 32 Sewa Sahakari Sammittee Maryadit Beed Page 3 of 32 of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay

MR.MOHD WASIM,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO -3 (2), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2008-09 Mohd. Wasim Khan, Ito, 3(2), House No. 32, Bhopal बनाम/ Yaseen Mahal, Peergate, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/ Appellant) (Revenue/ Respondent) Pan: Abdpw7203P Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal C.A. & Shri N. D. Patwa, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023

32, Bhopal बनाम/ Yaseen Mahal, Peergate, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/ Appellant) (Revenue/ Respondent) PAN: ABDPW7203P Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal C.A. and Shri N. D. Patwa, Adv. Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 01.09.2021 passed

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. MARAL OVERSEAS LTD, KHARGONE

In the result appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-4(1), Indore Maral Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Maral Sarovar, V& Po Vs. Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal

condone the delay. There are no malafides. The cause of the delay is bonafidely explained basis bonafide reasons. The appeal is admitted & taken up for hearing. 3.3 During the course of the hearing thereafter the Ld. AR for the assessee company addressed this Tribunal first, for which the Ld. DR had no objection. 3.4 The Ld. AR stated that

RAJESH PRAJAPATI ,UJJAIN vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1) , UJJAIN

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2013-14 Shri Rajesh Prajapati, A.C.I.T., बनाम/ 15, Naliya Bakhal, Circle 2(1), Ujjain Ujjain Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Alnpp5190Q Assessee By Ms.Sonam Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean

SHRI SALEEM PARVEZ,BHOPAL vs. PCIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Saleem Parvez Pcit-1 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ P.A.No. Acyps8006L Vs. Appellant (Assessee) Respondent (Revenue) Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22 / 02 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09 /03/ 2022 आदेश / O R D E R

delay is condoned and the appeal is proceeded with for hearing. Page 2 of 12 Saleem Parvez ITANo.248/Ind/2021 4. The assessee submitted original return on 31.10.2015 at a total income of Rs. 2,74,75,700/- and revised return on 17.08.2016 at a total income of Rs. 3,76,76,850/-. The case of assessee was selected under scrutiny through

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

SANTOSH CHATURVEDI,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purpose

Section 249(2) of the\nI.T Act and therefore the appeal is dismissed.\nSince the appeal has been found not maintainable as per\ndiscussion made in the preceding paras, therefore, no decision\non merits on the grounds of appeal is given.\n8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed\"\n2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order\"\nhas

SHREE RAJENDRA SURI SAH SAKH SANTHA MYD,RAJGARH, DHAR vs. THE ITO, DHAR, DHAR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

condoning the delay in filing of appeal even when there was justifiable reason for delay in filing of the said appeal\n\n2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs.\n\n17,11,287/- to the total income of the appellant on account

JIWAJI UNIVERSITY,GWALIOR vs. CIT, EXEMPTION, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee are dismissed

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

32 & 33/Ind/2022 (Assessment Year:2019-20) Jiwaji University CIT(Exemption) Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AAALJ 0464 H Assessee by None Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT- DR Date of Hearing 28.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement 02.03.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate

JIWAJI UNIVERSITY,GWALIOR vs. CIT, EXEMPTION, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee are dismissed

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

32 & 33/Ind/2022 (Assessment Year:2019-20) Jiwaji University CIT(Exemption) Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AAALJ 0464 H Assessee by None Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT- DR Date of Hearing 28.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement 02.03.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

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

condonation of delay. In such cases, depending on the language of the statute and the objects sought to be achieved by prescribing the time-limit, it would be the duty of the officer to consider the documents, even submitted belatedly. Thus, this decision also supports the view that even if the prescribed form is submitted belatedly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

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

condonation of delay. In such cases, depending on the language of the statute and the objects sought to be achieved by prescribing the time-limit, it would be the duty of the officer to consider the documents, even submitted belatedly. Thus, this decision also supports the view that even if the prescribed form is submitted belatedly

M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

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

condonation of delay. In such cases, depending on the language of the statute and the objects sought to be achieved by prescribing the time-limit, it would be the duty of the officer to consider the documents, even submitted belatedly. Thus, this decision also supports the view that even if the prescribed form is submitted belatedly

DCIT !(1) INDORE, INDORE vs. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

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

condonation of delay. In such cases, depending on the language of the statute and the objects sought to be achieved by prescribing the time-limit, it would be the duty of the officer to consider the documents, even submitted belatedly. Thus, this decision also supports the view that even if the prescribed form is submitted belatedly

M.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee company is engaged in the Financial Assistance for industrial development and infrastructure. It declared total loss at Rs.1,55,62,351/- in the return filed on 30.09.2015. The case was selected for limited

SANTOSH CHATURVEDI,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purpose

Section 249(2) of the\nI.T Act and therefore the appeal is dismissed.\nSince the appeal has been found not maintainable as per\npreceding paras, therefore, no decision\non merits on the grounds of appeal is given.\n8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed\"\n2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order\"\nhas preferred the instant second