HARDA NAGAR BAL VIKAS SAMITI HARDA ,SARSWATI SHISHU MANDIR vs. ITO-1, HARDA, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms mentioned above

69C.\"\nThe precise facts of present appeal, as culled out from assessment-order and as per submissions made by Ld. AR for assessee, are such that the assessee-society named as “Harda Nagar Bal Vikash Samiti Harda” is engaged in educational activity by running two educational institutions (schools) in the names of “Saraswati Vidhya Mandir” and “Saraswati Shishu Mandir” which

KHANDELWAL GINNING FACTORY ,KHANDWA vs. ACIT, NFAC (ITO, WARD-1, KHANDWA), DELHI

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

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

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court coupled with the fact that the assessee-firm is already dissolved, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. On merits of case, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 10,14,35,000/- made

KHANDELWAL GINNING FACTORY,KHANDWA vs. BPL-W-(61)(94), NFAC (ITO, WARD-1), DELHI

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

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

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court coupled with the fact that the assessee-firm is already dissolved, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. On merits of case, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 10,14,35,000/- made

BALUSINGH KIRAR,RAJGARH vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESMENT CENTER, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2018-19 Balu Singh Kirar Nfac S/O Dariyav Singh Delhi Tapriyahedi बनाम/ Kharpa Zirapur Vs. Rajgarh (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Gukps7110D Assessee By Shri Chandresh Singhvi, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2025

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. Ld. AR next submitted that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order for non-prosecution of appeal by assessee without making adjudication in terms of mandate of section 250(6). Further, the AO’s order is also ex-parte for non-compliances of notices. But the AO has made

SHRI GYANENDRA SINGH JADON,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Gyanendra Singh Jadon Dcit-1(1) M-4, Radio Colony, Bhopal बनाम Indore /Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aespj9459E Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri Aditya Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

delay is condoned and appeal was proceeded for hearing. 3. Precisely stated the facts are such that a search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted at the premises of one Shri Mukesh Sharma on 21.07.2008 wherein certain documents were seized on the basis of which it was inferred that Shri Mukesh Sharma was a contractor-cum-liasoning agent

LOVEKESH PATIL,BURHANPUR vs. CIT APPEALS, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Lovekesh Patil, Ito, House No. 204/1, Burhanpur बनाम/ Village - Turak Gurada, Vs. District – Burhanpur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Dhnpp1752B Assessee By Assessee In Person Revenue By Shri K.Bala Murli Krishna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024

section 68,69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and assessee total income does not include any such income. 4. The addition of Rs. 2,40,920/- made by the AO on protective basis, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because in this case the AO himself stated in the assessment order that the assessee has explained cash