M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Delay condoned 2 We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. 3 Pending application, if any stands disposed off.” 11.11 Therefore, in the circumstances and on the facts of the present case and in light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court reproduced

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 ITA No. 533/Ind/2025 8. COMPUTATION OF PENALTY Hence, the assessee is liable to pay penalty of 10% percent of the amount of tax payable u/s 115BBE of the Income tax Act. SI. No. Description Amount in Rs. i Income chargeable to tax under the provisions of Sce. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Rs. 3,45

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