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

ZYKA MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

delay is hereby condoned in the interest of justice with respect to the impugned cases listed before us. On merits: ITA No. 580/Ind/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) 4. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in making

ZYKA MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

delay is hereby condoned in the interest of justice with respect to the impugned cases listed before us. On merits: ITA No. 580/Ind/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) 4. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in making

ZYKA MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

delay is hereby condoned in the interest of justice with respect to the impugned cases listed before us. On merits: ITA No. 580/Ind/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) 4. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in making

JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee before us are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

delay is hereby condoned in the interest of justice with respect to the impugned cases listed before us. On merits: 4. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in making and Ld. CIT (A) in confirming addition

JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee before us are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

delay is hereby condoned in the interest of justice with respect to the impugned cases listed before us. On merits: 4. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in making and Ld. CIT (A) in confirming addition

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

69 of the Act. (Tax Effect :18,685/-) 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Appeal No.ITA/79/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 On the facts and the circumstances of the case:- Shri Mohan Bhawani ITA Nos 78 to 80/Ind/2019 1. That the penalty order is invalid, unjustified and liable

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

69 of the Act. (Tax Effect :18,685/-) 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Appeal No.ITA/79/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 On the facts and the circumstances of the case:- Shri Mohan Bhawani ITA Nos 78 to 80/Ind/2019 1. That the penalty order is invalid, unjustified and liable

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

69 of the Act. (Tax Effect :18,685/-) 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Appeal No.ITA/79/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 On the facts and the circumstances of the case:- Shri Mohan Bhawani ITA Nos 78 to 80/Ind/2019 1. That the penalty order is invalid, unjustified and liable

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), INDORE

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

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

Section 249(3) of the Act. The appeals are therefore not admitted and proceeded with, and therefore dismissed in limine. However, without any prejudice to the rejection of appellant's condonation of delay plea resulting in appeals being dismissed in limine, appellant's two appeals are considered for disposal on facts of case as available on record and keeping

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

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

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

Section 249(3) of the Act. The appeals are therefore not admitted and proceeded with, and therefore dismissed in limine. However, without any prejudice to the rejection of appellant's condonation of delay plea resulting in appeals being dismissed in limine, appellant's two appeals are considered for disposal on facts of case as available on record and keeping

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)

69 days in this appeal. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed a condonation-application supported by an affidavit. Referring to contents of same, Ld. AR explained that the delay has occurred due to the local counsel of assessee (Shri Jitendra Jain) as well as presently arguing counsel (Shri Gagan Tiwari) who were engaged for handling this

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)

69 days in this appeal. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed a condonation-application supported by an affidavit. Referring to contents of same, Ld. AR explained that the delay has occurred due to the local counsel of assessee (Shri Jitendra Jain) as well as presently arguing counsel (Shri Gagan Tiwari) who were engaged for handling this

DUGDH UTPADAN SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,BARWANI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, SENDHWA

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for sake of brevity) as and by way of Second appeal under the Act. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-5/1064364953 (1) dated 25.05.2024 of CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as Page 1 of 7 Dugdh Utpadan Sahakari Samiti Maryadit

M/S. GREATER KAILASH HOSPITAL (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, being not maintainable is

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14

69,740/- only in place of depreciation as allowable under section 32 of the Act of Rs. 2,62,09,454/- 4. The appellant reserves its right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by it” Application of the assessee for condonation of delay

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

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

69 r.w.s. 115 BBE of the IT Act. b) This case was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act, 1961 on the basis of the information that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 3,45,00,000/- in its bank account maintained with ICICI Bank Ltd. during the year. It is further seen that the assessee

VIRENDRA KUMAR NAMDEV,INDORE vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

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

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

section 144B of the Act on 27.05.2023 by estimating commission income at 5% of the alleged transaction value of ₹13,86,31,900/- and made an addition of ₹69,31,595/- as unexplained income, thereby assessing the total income at ₹69,31,595/-. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income

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

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