SAQUIB AHMED,PIPARIYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

65,981/-. The\ncase was selected for scrutiny. Notice(s) u/s 143(2) and 142(1)\nwere issued from time to time. The assessee made a detailed\nsubmission along with the documentary evidences regarding\nsalary income, capital gain calculation deductions under chapter\nVI-A, etc. The Ld. AO in the aforesaid assessment order held\nthat:-\n//\nIn view

SHEETAL NATH COLONIZERS,BHOPAL vs. ITO,1(2), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL

In the result the impugned order is set aside as & by way of

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisheetal Nath Colonizers, Ito 1(2) बनाम/ Plot No.48, M/S Sheetal Nath Bhopal Vs. Colonizers, Near Arya Bhawan, M. P. Nagar Zone Ii Bhopal (Pan: Abzfs4967L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

65 days. Unless and until it is demonstrated that there was sufficient cause that prevented the appellant from exercising its legal remedy of filing appeal within that prescribed period of thirty days, the delay thereafter cannot Page 4 of 12 Sheetal Nath Colonizers ITA No. 1094/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2013-14 be condoned without there being compelling grounds, as laid down

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

65,125/- under section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19. The penalty was imposed due to unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 3,45,00,000/-. The assessee's first appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay in filing. The assessee claimed the delay was due to lack

AMIT VYAS,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), UJJAIN , UJJAIN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Amit Vyas, Income-Tax Officer, 103, Raghukul Apartment, 2(1), बनाम/ Kshpanak Marg, Ujjain Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aefpv4664L Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2024

section 249 of the Act as both the provisions stipulate that after expiry of stipulated period of limitation as per provisions of the relevant Act, if the court satisfied that there was a “sufficient cause” for non-representing the appeal within prescribed period, then the appeal may be admitted for hearing on merits by condoning the delay.” 6.3 Further

M/S RANA & JOSHI BUILDTECH P LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pr. Cit-1 Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (Formerly Known As M/S Rana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) Vs. 218 Civil Lines, Below Dainik Bhaskar Office Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcr9858P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .09.2024

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. The assesse has raised following grounds of appeal: 1.“That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in setting-aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 even

ONEEL VERMA,NASHIK vs. ITO-5(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay of 65 days in filing the present appeal. We have carefully considered the contents of the application as well as the affidavit filed in support thereof. From the explanation furnished, it is evident that the impugned order passed under section

ADIM JATI SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYA KHEDI SAWLIGAD,KHEDISAWLIGARH (BETUL) vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (FACELESS UNIT)

Appeals are allowed as and by way of remand\nback to the file of CIT(A)

condonation of delay of 65 days in preferring the first\nappeal.\n4.4 In the premises self-out hereinabove, we are of the considered\nopinion that it would be just, fair and convenient and in over all\ninterest of the ends of justice that the impugned order be set\naside and matter be relegated back to the file

ADIM JATI SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYA KHEDI SAWLIGAD,KHEDISAWLIGARH (BETUL) vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT , FACELESS

Appeals are allowed as and by way of remand\nback to the file of CIT(A)

condonation of delay of 65 days in preferring the first\nappeal.\n4.4 In the premises self-out hereinabove, we are of the considered\nopinion that it would be just, fair and convenient and in over all\ninterest of the ends of justice that the impugned order be set\naside and matter be relegated back to the file

RAJESH PRAJAPATI ,UJJAIN vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1) , UJJAIN

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2013-14 Shri Rajesh Prajapati, A.C.I.T., बनाम/ 15, Naliya Bakhal, Circle 2(1), Ujjain Ujjain Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Alnpp5190Q Assessee By Ms.Sonam Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, we hereby condone the delay in filing present appeal and proceed to adjudicate on merits. GROUND NO. 1: 7. In this ground, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of Rs. 44,32,850/- made by the AO out of deduction of interest expenditure claimed by assessee u/s 36(1)(iii). Page

ASHWINI SHRIVASTAVA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-2(5), BHOPAL

In the result “impugned order” is set aside as and by way

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiashwani Shrivastava, Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ 169 Crystle Ideal City, 2(5), Vs. Awadhpuri, Bhopal Bhopal (Pan: Aemps0026G) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2025

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal as and by way of Second appeal under the Act. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing No.ITBA/NFAC/250/2023-24/1059975856(1) dated 22.01.2024 of Ld. CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred

SIDDHI VINAYAK,INDORE vs. ITO-3(1), INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Siddhi Vinayak, Income-Tax Officer, 210, Dhan Trident, 3(1), Satya Sai Square, Indore. बनाम/ Vijay Nagar, Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Accfs1664A Assessee By Shri Arpit Gaur, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Final Hearing 22.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2024

condone the delay, admit this appeal and proceed for hearing on merit. 4. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the wholesale trading of grain and pulses. For AY 2015-16, the assessee filed return declaring a turnover of Rs. 31,40,27,378/-, gross-profit

DILIP KUMAR JAIN,MANDIDEEP vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAISEN

Appeals are allowed for statistical

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

65,920/-. Simultaneously, the AO also intiated proceeding for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) vide notice dated 29.02.2016 and ultimately imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,12,630/- (+) cess on penalty of Rs. 3,380/- vide penalty-order dated 24.08.2016. Aggrieved by both orders i.e. the assessment-order dated 29.03.2016 and penalty-order dated 24.08.2016, the assessee filed

DILIP KUMAR JAIN,MANDIDEEP vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAISEN, RAISEN

Appeals are allowed for statistical

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

65,920/-. Simultaneously, the AO also intiated proceeding for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) vide notice dated 29.02.2016 and ultimately imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,12,630/- (+) cess on penalty of Rs. 3,380/- vide penalty-order dated 24.08.2016. Aggrieved by both orders i.e. the assessment-order dated 29.03.2016 and penalty-order dated 24.08.2016, the assessee filed

NARENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

condone delay, admit\nappeal and proceed with hearing.\n4. The background facts leading to present appeal are as under:\n(i)\nThe assessee-individual is a differently-abled person. Originally, he\nwas a permanent employee of Central Govt. in the Department of\nTelecom for the period 01.12.1984 to 01.10.2000. Thereafter, w.e.f.\n01.10.2000, he was absorbed in BSNL, a public sector

MADHYA PRADESH URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(3), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimadhya Pradesh Urja Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Vikas Nigam Ltd, 2(3), Vs. 1 Urja Bhawan, Bhopal Link Road Nos.2, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Pan:Aabcm1097M) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shashank Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 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/250/2024- 25/1069365385(1) dated 04.10.2024 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER 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

SCIENCE FORUM FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH TAKSHSHILA JUNIOR COLLEGE,UJJAIN vs. CIT(A), UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2014-15

Delay condoned. Matter admitted and taken up for hearing. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That the return of Income (ROI) for Assessment Year 2014- 15 was filed on 31.10.2014 declaring total income at Rs.NIL. 2.2 That the case of the assessee was selected under scrutiny and assessment was done u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2016 and assessed income

SHREERAM CONSTRUCTIONS,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result we are of the considered opinion that the

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishreeram Construction, Commissioner Of बनाम/ Shop No.2,New Shri Ram Income-Tax Vs. Parisar, Phase I Khajuri Kala, (Appeals) Bhopal, Bhopal (Pan:Abgfs5939P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Govind Rinwa, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of convenience & brevity] before this tribunal as and by way of a second appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-ITBA/NFAC/250/2023- 24/1055303221(1) dated 22/08/2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein