M/S HOPE TEXTILES LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

condonation of delay in depositing the balance amount, thereafter the application remained pending before CBDT due to procedural steps. Invariably CBDT sought response of department to this application which was also delayed and in any event the delay in the matter due to pendency of application before CBDT could not be said to be delay on the part the appellant

M/S HOPE TEXTILES LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

condonation of delay in depositing the balance amount, thereafter the application remained pending before CBDT due to procedural steps. Invariably CBDT sought response of department to this application which was also delayed and in any event the delay in the matter due to pendency of application before CBDT could not be said to be delay on the part the appellant

M/S HOPE TEXTILES LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

condonation of delay in depositing the balance amount, thereafter the application remained pending before CBDT due to procedural steps. Invariably CBDT sought response of department to this application which was also delayed and in any event the delay in the matter due to pendency of application before CBDT could not be said to be delay on the part the appellant

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.

condonation of delay in respect of refund due. This instruction is issued with an objective to mitigate the hardship to the assessee. Para 7 of the Instruction, in our view, is limited to the extent of ascertaining the claim of the assessee. This does not empower the Assessing Officer to make scrutiny of the entire case, which goes against

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

BISA NEEMA PANCHAYAT BHAWAN TRUST,M.G ROAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) BHOPAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION) BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaa.Y. : 2023-24 Bisa Neema Panchayat Commissioner Of Income- Bhawan Trust, Tax (Exemption), बनाम/ 285, M.G. Road, Bhopal Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aactb4287E Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, C.A. & Ar Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.11.2024

42 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the President of assessee-trust, Shri Rajesh Kothana, has filed an affidavit and prays for condonation of delay, the same is scanned and re-produced below: Page 1 of 13 Bisa Neema Panchayat Bhawan Trust, Indore. ITA No. 480/Ind/2024 - A.Y. 2023-24 Page 2 of 13 Bisa Neema

SAVITRI BAI JHAWAR SEWA NYAS,KHANDWA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2020-21 Savitri Bai Jhawar Sewa Ito (Exemption ) Nyas, Indore Viklang Bal Sewa Ashram, बनाम/ Bt College Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaats5055P Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta & Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026

condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority, which is against the principles of natural justice and thus, the Appellate Order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the Ld. Jt. CIT(A), is liable to be quashed. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to the above

SIDDHI VINAYAK,INDORE vs. ITO-3(1), INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Siddhi Vinayak, Income-Tax Officer, 210, Dhan Trident, 3(1), Satya Sai Square, Indore. बनाम/ Vijay Nagar, Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Accfs1664A Assessee By Shri Arpit Gaur, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Final Hearing 22.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2024

condone the delay, admit this appeal and proceed for hearing on merit. 4. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the wholesale trading of grain and pulses. For AY 2015-16, the assessee filed return declaring a turnover of Rs. 31,40,27,378/-, gross-profit

VIRENDRA KUMAR NAMDEV,INDORE vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

section 144B of the Act on 27.05.2023 by estimating commission income at 5% of the alleged transaction value of ₹13,86,31,900/- and made an addition of ₹69,31,595/- as unexplained income, thereby assessing the total income at ₹69,31,595/-. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income

HARE RAM MANDIR TRUST,BHOPAL vs. ITO -EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3.2 The Ld. AR then showed us the recovery of demand outstanding notice dated 15.11.2021 wherein for the year under consideration 2014-15 there was a demand of Rs.2,42,240/- as not paid. The Ld. AR then contended that at this point of time and date i.e. 15.12.2021 they became aware

HARE RAM MANDIR TRUST,BHOPAL vs. ITO-EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3.2 The Ld. AR then showed us the recovery of demand outstanding notice dated 15.11.2021 wherein for the year under consideration 2014-15 there was a demand of Rs.2,42,240/- as not paid. The Ld. AR then contended that at this point of time and date i.e. 15.12.2021 they became aware

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

SANJAY SAHU,BHOPAL vs. THE TH4E ITO 2(1), BYHOPAL

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2010-11 Sanjay Sahu, Ito 2(1), H.No.98-A Sector, Bhopal बनाम/ Kasturba Nagar, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Apyps1707D Assessee By Shri Shashank Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed return declaring a Gross Total Income of Rs. 2,97,706/-, Deduction of Rs. 45,271/- under Chapter

SHAILESH KALWADIA (HUF) ,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BPL-C-(91)(1), UJJAIN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

42,978/- though the transaction considered and disclosed in return as LTCG income was duly accounted. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in stating that no submissions were made during the appellate proceedings, whereas the appellant had duly filed written submissions and supporting 4 documents on multiple occasions during the hearing process. The CIT(A)'s failure to consider

SHAILESH KALWADIA (HUF),UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BPL-C(91)(1), BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

42,978/- though the transaction considered and disclosed in return as LTCG income was duly accounted. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in stating that no submissions were made during the appellate proceedings, whereas the appellant had duly filed written submissions and supporting 4 documents on multiple occasions during the hearing process. The CIT(A)'s failure to consider

NIDHI JAIN,BHOPAL vs. ITO 3(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year:2015-16

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed her return of income of AY 2015-16 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,27,600/-. The case was selected

HIRAMANI AJIT KUMAR JAIN,RATLAM vs. ITO-1, RATLAM, RATLAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Hiramani Ajit Kumar Jain, Income Tax Officer-1, 77, Tashakand Marg, Ratlam Vs. Ratlam (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agcph3330A Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.10.2024 O R D E R

delay of 18 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That the order of the ADDL/JCIT(A) 2 Hyderabad is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law and also in breach of principle of natural justice. 1.1 That the action of the ADDL/JCIT(A) 2 Hyderabad

BABITA CHELAWAT,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed & the impugned order is set aside

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

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 is bad in law, without jurisdiction, and liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 2 reassessment was completed without complying with the statutory requirements of law. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 3 Hon. CIT(A) erred