INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

delay, which was condoned.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly admitted additional evidence under Rule 46A, as the assessee had shown sufficient cause for non-furnishing earlier. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to loans and sundry creditors, finding that the assessee had discharged their onus

SURESH PATEL,DEWAS vs. CIT(A),NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

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

delayed by 312 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed a condonation-application supported by an affidavit. Referring to the contents of same and also referring to the orders of lower- authorities, Ld. AR explained that the assessee is a senior citizen and pure agriculturist. That, the assessee has never filed

SURESH PATEL,DEWAS vs. CIT(A) ,NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

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

delayed by 312 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed a condonation-application supported by an affidavit. Referring to the contents of same and also referring to the orders of lower- authorities, Ld. AR explained that the assessee is a senior citizen and pure agriculturist. That, the assessee has never filed

RADHAKISHAN,KHATEGAON, DEWAS vs. ITO-2, DEWAS, DEWAS

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

condone the delay looking to the profile of\nthe assessee being senior citizen & agriculturist. After\nconsidering the submission of both the Ld. AR & Ld. DR we\ncondone the delay as sufficient cause is shown. Hence the appeal\nis admitted & taken up for hearing.\n3.2 The Ld. AR for & on behalf of the assessee has placed on\nrecord of this Tribunal

ACIT 2 (1), INDORE vs. M/S JILA INDUSTRIES LTD, DHAR

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-2(1), Indore M/S. Jiji Industries Ltd., (Formerly Known As बनाम/ Krishna Profiles Pvt. Vs. Ltd.), Plot No. 316, Sejwaya, Billod, Dhar (Mp) (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan - Aacck 1383 M Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh, Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.12.2022

condoned the delay. We do find any ground or reason of not agreeing to the well-founded decision taken by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we dismiss the first-fold of Ground No. 1. 6. With regard to the second-fold of this ground i.e. admission of additional evidences, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given following observation

INCOME TAX OFFICER INDORE 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

condone delay, admit these appeals and proceed with\nhearing.\n3. The background facts leading to present appeals are such that the\nassessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate. For AY\n2017-18 & 2018-19, the assessee filed its returns/revised returns of income\nu/s 139 declaring total incomes of Rs. Nil (with current year loss

NEHA TAMRAKAR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5 (1), BHOPAL

In the result, the “Impugned Order” is set aside as & by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshineha Tamrakar, Ito -5(1), बनाम/ 177 A Sector, Indrapuri Bhopal. Vs. Bhopal(M.P.) (Pan: Ajtpt6475G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 under which your case falls should be specified along with necessary documents to support the existence of the exceptional circumstances so specified. In response the assessee merely submitted submitted that that "The "The Order Order is is Passed U/s 144 and the Assessee Failed To produce Necessary Evidence." 7.4 Thus, the assessee

PARAS KUMAR KOTHARI,BHOPAL vs. ITO- 2(3), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

delay is condoned and hearing\nis proceeded.\n4. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the\nassessee-individual is a doctor by profession. For AY 2013-14, the assessee\nfiled his return of income u/s 139 declaring a total income of Rs.6,12,553/-.\nThe case was selected for scrutiny and the AO issued notices u/s\n143

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL vs. SH. PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA, BHOPAL

In the result the “impugned order” is sustained on the first

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit, Prakash Chandra, बनाम/ Bhopal 16/244, Kings Vs. Shopping Centre, Mp Nagar, Zone-I, Bhopal-462011 Madhya Pradesh (Pan:Aappg5194E)

section 68. As a result, ground no 2 is partly allowed. (5). In result, the appeal is partly allowed. 4. That the Revenue being aggrieved by the “Impugned order” has preferred the instant appeal before this Tribunal and has raised the following grounds of appeal in the Form No. 36 against the “Impugned order” which are as under:- “1. Ground

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

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-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

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

ULTIMATE CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2010-11 Ultimate Construction, Dcit-1(1), G-1, Kamdenu Tower, Bhopal बनाम/ E-2/21, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aabfu9241J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, C.A. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.02.2024

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. Page 3 of 14 Ultimate Construction, Bhopal vs. Dy. CIT,1(1), Bhopal, ITA No. 379/Ind/2023 – AY 2010-11 3. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-firm is engaged

KAMLESH KOUSHAL,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1(2), INDORE

section 69A may\nkindly be deleted.\n4. That, the Hon'ble AddI / JCIT(Appeal), Faridabad has\nerred in rejecting the documentary evidence filed during\nthe appellant proceedings treating the same as\nadditional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax\nRules, 1962 and has further erred in appreciating the\nfacts on record that some documentary evidences were\nalready filed before

INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(1), BHOPAL, METRO WALK BUILDING, BITTON MARKET, BHOPAL vs. SHABANA SHEIKH, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/250/2024-25/1065398935(1) dated 05.06.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A), u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant Page 1 of 8 Shabana Sheikh

SHRI RAJESH KUMAR MODI,INDORE vs. ITO , DHAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanivirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Rajesh Kumar Modi Ito Indore Dhar बनाम/ (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Vs. P.A. No. Aispm6839R Assessee By Shri Vijay Bansal, Ar Revenue By Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09 .03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

46A of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and without appreciating the merits of the submissions made before him, erred in confirming the heavy addition of Rs.18,08,000/- under section 69A of the Act, without any lawful reason, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts

DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S MAA UMIYA AGRITECH PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit 1(1) M/S. Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Indore 119, A.B. Road, Aloo Pyaj Mandi, Vs. Indore (Appellant / (Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn8230F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Accordingly, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo- moto cognizance for extension of the limitation, the appeal of the revenue is treated as filed within the period of limitation. 3. The Revenue has raised following ground of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting

DCIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL, MHOW

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

delay in filing the appeals is condoned in view of Covid-19 restrictions. As submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and as also concurred with by the Ld. Departmental Representative that the issues raised in all these appeals are common and inter-linked and as also, are arising out of the similar facts, for the sake of convenience