SHRI DINESH NIGAM,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2 (3), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

condone the delay and take up the appeal for hearing. 6. Ground Nos.1 to 4 are inter-connected and are against treating the agricultural land as capital asset. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the statement of facts. The submission of Ld. Counsel in the statement of facts are as under: 1. “The appellant

BABITA CHELAWAT,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed & the impugned order is set aside

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

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 is bad in law, without jurisdiction, and liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 2 reassessment was completed without complying with the statutory requirements of law. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 3 Hon. CIT(A) erred

SHRI CHATURLAL GOND,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO-1, ITARSI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Chatur Lal Gond, Ito-1, 72, Balajee Niwas

72, Balajee Niwas, Itarsi. बनाम/ Royal Market Road, Bhopal Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) PAN: AUYPG 1196 M Assessee by Ms. Nisha Lahoti, CA Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement 13.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 16.12.2022 passed by learned Commissioner

NIDHI JAIN,BHOPAL vs. ITO 3(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year:2015-16

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed her return of income of AY 2015-16 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,27,600/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) were issued. Initially, the assessee

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)

72 ITR 194 that "It is for the assessee to prove that even if the cash credit represents income, it is income from a source, which has already been taxed". The assessee has already offered the sales for taxation hence the onus has been discharged by it and the same income cannot be taxed again. Similiar decision of the Delhi

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

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 4(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUYASH EXIM P LTD , INDORE

Accordingly, departmental grounds with regard to addition of Rs.1,81,847/- are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2011-12

condone the delay in filing the departmental appeal and admit the same for hearing. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and, in law, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in not appreciating the findings and establishment of the Assessing Officer. 2) On the facts

AJAY AGARKAR,UJJAIN vs. CIT(A), MADHYA PRADESH

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2018-19 Ajay Aagarkar Nfac House No.4, Kalpataru Delhi Avenue, Dewas Road, Near बनाम/ Rukmani Motors Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abhpa2638L Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Nerkar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement .01.2025

condone the delay of 52 days and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are as follows : “1.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without properly going into reply submitted before him. 2.The appellant crave leave to add/alter any of the grounds of appeal before

THE ACIT, CIRCLE, RATLAM vs. M/S. MAHALAXMI INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD., RATLAM

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

delay in filing of the cross objections is not condoned. Accordingly, both cross objections No. 2 & 3/Ind/2020 are dismissed. 5. Now we take up revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 for which following grounds are raised: ITANo.955/Ind/2016 for A.Y. 2010-11 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id. CIT is erred

THE ACIT CIRCLE,RATLAM vs. M/S. MAHALAXMI INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD., RATLAM

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

delay in filing of the cross objections is not condoned. Accordingly, both cross objections No. 2 & 3/Ind/2020 are dismissed. 5. Now we take up revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 for which following grounds are raised: ITANo.955/Ind/2016 for A.Y. 2010-11 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id. CIT is erred

RAHUL SHARMA ,INDORE vs. DCIT /CPC , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

72 Bijali Nagar, Bicholi Income Tax Road, Indore - 452016 CPC, Bengaluru PAN No.AOGPS8884N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Pankaj Mogra, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R. 16.09.2022 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 19.09.2022 O R D E R PER BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI - AM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.12.2021 passed

JWALA MAHILA SAMITI,121 AB SCHEME NO 54 ,VIJAY NAGAR INDORE vs. CIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

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

72 of paper book dated 17.09.2025 for the Financial Years 01.4.2020 to 31.03.2021, 01.4.2021 to 31.03.2022 and 01.4.2022 to 31.03.2023. The list of donors for Financial Years 2021-22, 2022-23 & 2023-24 are at paper book dated 17.09.2025 pages 73 to 76. 2.5 That the assessee society was granted an order for provisional approval under 12 clause

SHRI VISHNU MUKATI,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

condone the delay in filing of instant appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. Assessee(s) has raised following common grounds of appeal in ITANos.870 to 874/Ind/2019:- GROUND I: 1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax -I, Indore ["the PCIT"] erred in invoking provisions of section

SHRI KAMAL KISHORE MUKATI,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

condone the delay in filing of instant appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. Assessee(s) has raised following common grounds of appeal in ITANos.870 to 874/Ind/2019:- GROUND I: 1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax -I, Indore ["the PCIT"] erred in invoking provisions of section

SHRI DILIP MUKATI,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

condone the delay in filing of instant appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. Assessee(s) has raised following common grounds of appeal in ITANos.870 to 874/Ind/2019:- GROUND I: 1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax -I, Indore ["the PCIT"] erred in invoking provisions of section

SHRI ASHOK MUKATI,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1 , INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

condone the delay in filing of instant appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. Assessee(s) has raised following common grounds of appeal in ITANos.870 to 874/Ind/2019:- GROUND I: 1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax -I, Indore ["the PCIT"] erred in invoking provisions of section