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

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

delay of\n78/74 days is condoned taking into account the explanation given by\nassessee in above application in the light of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs\nMst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 having settled\nthe law long back that all such technical aspects must make a way for the\ncause of substantial justice.\n4. Brief facts

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

In the result, the impugned order is set aside as & by way of\nremand back to the file of the Ld

4)\nCIT(A)\n(5)\nDepartmental Representative\n(6)\nGuard File\nBy order\nSenior Private Secretary\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nIndore Bench, Indore", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee is aggrieved by an order that treated cash deposits of Rs. 3,45,00,000/- as unexplained income under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee failed to file

KALPANA NARWARE,BETUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BETUL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

45 km away from the\nAppellant's village. Although the Appellant had provided all necessary\ndetails in a timely manner, the CA failed to file the responses within the\nstipulated time.\n11. That, after the passing of the impugned assessment order, the brother of\nAppellant who handle family business of petrol pump had contacted\nChartered Accountant, who initially informed

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

4 of 13 Jaykrishnan Nair ITA Nos. 538&732 /Ind/2024 - A.Y.2010-11 3.2 The Ld. AR interalia contended that assessee was a commercial pilot working with a Nigerian Airlines. That the “impugned assessment order” u/s 144 of the Act was passed on 04.12.2017. The 1st appeal before CIT(A) was filed on 03.07.2023 with a delay of 5 years, 5 months

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

4 of 13 Jaykrishnan Nair ITA Nos. 538&732 /Ind/2024 - A.Y.2010-11 3.2 The Ld. AR interalia contended that assessee was a commercial pilot working with a Nigerian Airlines. That the “impugned assessment order” u/s 144 of the Act was passed on 04.12.2017. The 1st appeal before CIT(A) was filed on 03.07.2023 with a delay of 5 years, 5 months

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

4\nITA No. 533/Ind/2025\n8. COMPUTATION OF PENALTY\nHence, the assessee is liable to pay penalty of 10%\npercent of the amount of tax payable u/s 115BBE of the\nIncome tax Act.\nSI.\nNo.\nDescription\nAmount in Rs.\ni\nIncome chargeable to tax under the\nprovisions of Sce. 115BBE of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961\nRs. 3,45

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

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

JEHAN NUMA PALACE HOTEL PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT/ACIT,5(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

45-48 of Paper-Book]. Thus, the exercise of obtaining\nForm No. 10CCB was done before specified date of 30.09.2015 for\nsame. However, what could not be done was the uploading of Form No.\n10CCB and this lapse too happened due to the reason explained by\nauditors of assessee in following affidavit submitted at Page 49 of\nPaper-Book:\nNOTARIAL

SMT. KAVITA SACHDEV,INDORE vs. ITO-3(4), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Kavita Sachdev, Income-Tax Officer, 112,Jairampur Colony, 3(4), बनाम/ Indore. Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan : Arcps6793D Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2024

4. Acute Febrile Illness (AFI), 26.06.22 03.07.22 Arihant Urinary Tract Infection and Hospital ARDS 5. Left Ventricular Ejection 18.10.22 21.10.22 Suyog Fraction (LVEF) 45-50 %, Hospital Urinary tract infection, DMII and HIN 6. Vitreo Retinal surgery for 05.12.22 06.12.22 Shankara Retinal Detachment Hospital We further note that the assessee has supported the reasons with medical record showing that the assessee

ILIYAS,KHARGONE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiiliyas, Nfac, बनाम/ 56, Khargone Road Bedia, Delhi Vs. Khargone

condone the delay of 45 days in filing the appeal. Matter admitted and taken up for hearing. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That as and by way of Assessment Order bearing Number :- ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1053047716(1) dated 22.05.2023 the assessee’s total income was determined/computed at Rs.33,29,641/- in terms of Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. The aforesaid assessment order

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

condonation of delay which we have already dealt in foregoing part of this order. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is not pressing Ground No. 4 since the same does not emanate from impugned order. Hence, Ground No. 4 is dismissed as non-pressed. By means of all other grounds, the assessee has raised a single grievance that

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

MUDIT KUMAR BAJAJ,UJJAIN vs. ITO-1(2), UJJAIN

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aezpb2621P Assessee By Ms. Nupur Ladha & Shri Vaibhav Siroliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2024 O R D E R

condoned. 4. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeals. “1. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance made by CPC,IT Department Bengaluru vide order passed u/s 154 without providing any opportunity to object the proposed rectification on account of cash payments to MPPKVVCL (a government agency for Power Distribution) and which providing were

MALWA PATIDAR SAMAJ SHIKSHA SAMITI ,HATPIPLIYA vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimalwa Patidar Samaj Shiksha Adit, Cpc Samiti Bangaluru Hatpiplya Tehsil Bagli Vs. Dewas (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabam4373Q Assessee By Mrs. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 10.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .09.2024

45,51,3 Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the adjustment made by Ld.ADIT, CPC by denying the exemption claimed u/s 10(23C) of Rs. 1,51,71,281. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the adjustment made by Ld.ADIT, CPC by denying the exemption claimed