SATYENDRA KUMAR VYAS,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as barred by

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 249 of the Income Tax Act. Meanwhile the appellant was of the opinion that his case was being duly handled with due diligence and care by his authorized representative. It was only when the penalty notices were furnished to him, he came to realize that no appropriate response was fled during the assessment proceedings and no appeal was filed

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.

section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing return involving refund claims above Rs. 10,00,000 and up to Rs. 50

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

50% amount could not be deposited in full but only partly, due to refusal of bank to release the amount inspite of there being funds in the account of the appellant. Thus, this delay could not be said to be a delay on the part of the appellant. 3. The second delay mentioned in the order

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

50% amount could not be deposited in full but only partly, due to refusal of bank to release the amount inspite of there being funds in the account of the appellant. Thus, this delay could not be said to be a delay on the part of the appellant. 3. The second delay mentioned in the order

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

50% amount could not be deposited in full but only partly, due to refusal of bank to release the amount inspite of there being funds in the account of the appellant. Thus, this delay could not be said to be a delay on the part of the appellant. 3. The second delay mentioned in the order

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

50 lacs and therefore, provision of section 194IA was not applicable. The demand has been raised by the department u/s 200 in terms of failure to comply with Section 200A, which deals with the processing of statement of tax deducted at source u/s 200. First of all, sub section 3 of section 200 provides that the person deducting

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

50 lacs and therefore, provision of section 194IA was not applicable. The demand has been raised by the department u/s 200 in terms of failure to comply with Section 200A, which deals with the processing of statement of tax deducted at source u/s 200. First of all, sub section 3 of section 200 provides that the person deducting

SITARAM MUCHHALA,MARDANA vs. ITO KHARGONE, KHARGONE

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

50% deduction under Section 57(iv). As the appellant failed to furnish any supporting documents, the assessing officer computed the Page 4 of 13 Sitaram Muchhala ITA No. 661/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19 capital gains with the cost of acquisition and Improvement taken as nil and added Rs.24,79,657 to total income under Section 45. 1. The final assessed income was determined

MANSOOR MIRZA ,JAORA vs. ITO, NEEMUCH , NEEMUCH

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimansoor Mirza Ito 110, Chhawani Jaora Dewas Vs. Jaora (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Angpm9218H Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024

delay of 50 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") erred in ex-parte dismissing the appeal of the Assessee and thereby confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer

GOVERDHAN LAL YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. The background facts leading to this appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed return of AY 2015-16 declaring a total income of Rs. Page 3 of 14 Goverdhan Lal Yadav ITA No. 854/Ind/2024- AY: 2015-16 49,130/-. In the return so filed, the assessee declared capital gain from

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

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

section 249(2) of the IT Act, the same is not admitted. 4. In view of the above facts, the appeal is dismissed for statistical purpose and not required to be adjudicated on merits. 5. In result, the appeal is disposed off." 2.5 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Order" has preferred the instant second appeal before this

RADHESHYAM,VILLAGE SEVDA , ASHTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiradheyshyam, Cit (A), बनाम/ Village Sevda, Nfac Vs. Ashta, Delhi Madhya Pradesh (Pan:Cezpr5392R) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1059089386(1) dated 27.12.2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year

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)

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, 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

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)

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, 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

MH BROTHERS ,RAISEN vs. THE ITO , RAISEN

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

50,000/- for unsecured loan received from Qutbi Qardan Hasana Trust be held to be bad and unjustified when the confirmation and PAN from the said Trust had been placed on record. The addition made be therefore quashed and deleted. Ground4. That the disallowance of Rs.39,155/- out of Depreciation on Car be held to be bad and unjustified

MH BROTHERS ,RAISEN vs. THE ITO , RAISEN

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

50,000/- for unsecured loan received from Qutbi Qardan Hasana Trust be held to be bad and unjustified when the confirmation and PAN from the said Trust had been placed on record. The addition made be therefore quashed and deleted. Ground4. That the disallowance of Rs.39,155/- out of Depreciation on Car be held to be bad and unjustified

SARYU DEVI TIWARI,BHOPAL vs. ITO 5(3), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisaryu Devi Tiwari Ito-5(3) House No.89, Near Durga Dham Bhopal Mandir, Ashoka Vihar, Ashoka Vs. Garden Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Arhpt0228M Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement .05.2024

50 acres of land holding and therefore, the assessee has sufficient source of agricultural income for depositing the cash in the bank account but the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte for non-prosecution. Thus, Ld. AR has pleaded that the matter may be set aside to the record of the AO/CIT(A) for fresh

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