THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condoned. 5 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others 5. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of government works contract for construction of roads. The income-tax return of the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11 was filed on 15.10.2010 declaring total income

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condoned. 5 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others 5. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of government works contract for construction of roads. The income-tax return of the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11 was filed on 15.10.2010 declaring total income

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

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

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

condone delay. The explanation offered is general in nature, lacks corroborative evidence beyond an affidavit, and does not inspire confidence that the delay was due to reasons entirely beyond the appellant's control. Hence, the reason stated can't be relied upon and therefore, as provided in the section 249(3) of the IT Act, I am not satisfied that

MOHAN BHAWNANI,INDORE vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

45,950/-) Shri Mohan Bhawani ITA Nos 78 to 80/Ind/2019 6. Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining interest u/s 234A to the tune of Rs.3,55,623/- (Tax Effect: 3,55,623/-) 7. Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining interest u/s 234B to the tune of Rs.6,90,327/- (Tax Effect

MOHAN BHAWNANI,INDORE vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

45,950/-) Shri Mohan Bhawani ITA Nos 78 to 80/Ind/2019 6. Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining interest u/s 234A to the tune of Rs.3,55,623/- (Tax Effect: 3,55,623/-) 7. Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining interest u/s 234B to the tune of Rs.6,90,327/- (Tax Effect

MOHAN BHAWNANI,INDORE vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

45,950/-) Shri Mohan Bhawani ITA Nos 78 to 80/Ind/2019 6. Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining interest u/s 234A to the tune of Rs.3,55,623/- (Tax Effect: 3,55,623/-) 7. Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining interest u/s 234B to the tune of Rs.6,90,327/- (Tax Effect

SHRI DINESH NIGAM,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2 (3), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

condone the delay and take up the appeal for hearing. 6. Ground Nos.1 to 4 are inter-connected and are against treating the agricultural land as capital asset. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the statement of facts. The submission of Ld. Counsel in the statement of facts are as under: 1. “The appellant

JAYKRISHNAN NAIR,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessee’s failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation u/s 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.s. 5 of the Limitation Act the delay of 2037 days in filing of appeal is not condoned and appeal is not admitted. Page 4 of 13 Jaykrishnan Nair

JAYKRISHNAN NAIR,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3(1, BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessee’s failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation u/s 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.s. 5 of the Limitation Act the delay of 2037 days in filing of appeal is not condoned and appeal is not admitted. Page 4 of 13 Jaykrishnan Nair

SHRI DEEPAK SONI, BHYOPAL vs. THE ITO 4 (3), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhashri Deepak Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Acyps8020J) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Kumar Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambey Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Avgps0484F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The brief facts leading to this appeal are such that the assessee- individual is engaged in jewellery business the name of M/s Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal. For AY 2017-18 under consideration, the assessee filed return declaring a total income of Rs. 8,73,380/-. The case was selected under scrutiny

SANDEEP KUMAR SONI,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 4(3), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhashri Deepak Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Acyps8020J) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Kumar Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambey Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Avgps0484F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The brief facts leading to this appeal are such that the assessee- individual is engaged in jewellery business the name of M/s Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal. For AY 2017-18 under consideration, the assessee filed return declaring a total income of Rs. 8,73,380/-. The case was selected under scrutiny

SITARAM MUCHHALA,MARDANA vs. ITO KHARGONE, KHARGONE

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

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 and in law, the NFAC Order dated

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

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

45,00,000/- ii Tax on 115BBE@60% Rs. 2,07,00,000/- iii Surcharge @ 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

THE ACIT CIRCLE,RATLAM vs. M/S. MAHALAXMI INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD., RATLAM

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

condoned. Accordingly, both cross objections No. 2 & 3/Ind/2020 are dismissed. 5. Now we take up revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 for which following grounds are raised: ITANo.955/Ind/2016 for A.Y. 2010-11 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id. CIT is erred i holding that the AO has reopened the case

THE ACIT, CIRCLE, RATLAM vs. M/S. MAHALAXMI INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD., RATLAM

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

condoned. Accordingly, both cross objections No. 2 & 3/Ind/2020 are dismissed. 5. Now we take up revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 for which following grounds are raised: ITANo.955/Ind/2016 for A.Y. 2010-11 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id. CIT is erred i holding that the AO has reopened the case

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

BHARAT JAROLI,NEEMUCH vs. PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Bharat Jaroli, Pr. Cit, B.No. 45, 1, Kila Road, Ujjain बनाम/ Mahaveer Bagh, Vs. Neemuch (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aanpj5994K Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.02.2024

45, 1, Kila Road, Ujjain बनाम/ Mahaveer Bagh, Vs. Neemuch (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) PAN: AANPJ5994K Assessee by Shri Anil Khandelwal, CA Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement 29.02.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the revision order dated