M/S KALINDI PLACE ,BHOPSL vs. ACIT CPC ,BANGLORE, BANGLORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

section 154 which amounts to reasonable cause and if assessee is seeking alternative option than the appeal should be condoned in such Kalindi Palace proportion the following case laws are relevant. . 1. Sri Sri Raghvendra V Asst commissioner appeal No ITA Nos.2518 & 2519/Bang/2018 BHARAT AUTO CENTER vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2005) 73 CCH 0661 AllHC Appeal [CIT(A)]—Condonation

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

73,704/- 3. Income excluding underreported 9,20,906/- income in consequence to misreporting of income (1-2) 4. Tax on Assessed Income (Tax+SC+EC 3,43,388/- only) 5. Tax on Income excluding under 1,12,458/- reported Income in consequence to misreported income (3) 6. Tax on underreported Income in 2,30,930/- consequence to misreported income

ANTAR SINGH MEWADA,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

Appeal of the assessed is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiantar Singh Mewada, Cit(A), बनाम/ 1, Barkhera Salam 1, Nfac, Vs. Barkhera Salam, Delhi Po Bhouri, Techsil Hujur Dist. Bhopal (Pan:Bompm3467E) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 01.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

73 days which are bonafide. That the Ld. AR finally attributed delay to two main reasons (i) e-mail address on the Form 35 was of an earlier counsel (ii) the earlier counsel did not check income tax portal and the e-mail. It was also pleaded that the assessee should not be penalized for the errors or negligence

JAYKRISHNAN NAIR,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3(1, BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

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/ 1065879845(1) dated 20.06.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. Page 1 of 13 Jaykrishnan Nair

JAYKRISHNAN NAIR,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

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/ 1065879845(1) dated 20.06.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. Page 1 of 13 Jaykrishnan Nair

MOHAR SINGH GOUR,BHOPAL vs. ITO NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed is non payment of advance

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

73 which are photo copy of medical records evidences that the assessee is sick person and is not medically fit and active. Prayer for condonation of delay was thus made during the Page 2 of 10 Mohar Singh Gour ITA Nos. 649 & 650/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2013-14 hearing held on 02.06.2025 and it was stated at bar that an affidavit is placed

MOHAR SINGH GOUR,BHOPAL vs. ITO NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed is non payment of advance

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

73 which are photo copy of medical records evidences that the assessee is sick person and is not medically fit and active. Prayer for condonation of delay was thus made during the Page 2 of 10 Mohar Singh Gour ITA Nos. 649 & 650/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2013-14 hearing held on 02.06.2025 and it was stated at bar that an affidavit is placed

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

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. MARAL OVERSEAS LTD, KHARGONE

In the result, the “Impugned

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshideputy Commissioner Of Maral Overseas Ltd. बनाम/ Income Tax- 4(1) Maral Srovar, V & Po, Vs. Indore Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal (Pan: Aaccm0230B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satyajeet Goyal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026

Section 73 of Companies Act, 1956? 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-31, New Delhi was justified in concluding that the total inflow of funds in share capital has been Page 31 of 56 Maral Overseas Ltd. ITA No. 569/Ind/2025 - A.Y.1992-93 completely utilized towards the acquisition of fixed assets by referring

PATWA ABHIKARAN P LTD,INDORE vs. ACIT- TDS-CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal is party allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

delay is condoned. ITA Nos .59/Ind/2021 & 60/Ind/2021 for A.Ys. 2013-14 2014-15 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. 4. The issue relates to addition under Section 234E of the Act which has stated to be covered by the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA Nos. 510/Ind/2019 in case

PATWA ABHIKARAN P LTD,INDORE vs. ACIT- TDS-CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal is party allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

delay is condoned. ITA Nos .59/Ind/2021 & 60/Ind/2021 for A.Ys. 2013-14 2014-15 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. 4. The issue relates to addition under Section 234E of the Act which has stated to be covered by the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA Nos. 510/Ind/2019 in case

PATWA ABHIKARAN P LTD,INDORE vs. ACIT- TDS-CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal is party allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

delay is condoned. ITA Nos .59/Ind/2021 & 60/Ind/2021 for A.Ys. 2013-14 2014-15 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. 4. The issue relates to addition under Section 234E of the Act which has stated to be covered by the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA Nos. 510/Ind/2019 in case

NIRMAL RAMTANI,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961 [herein after referred to as the Act for sake of brevity] before this tribunal as & by way of a second Appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-CIT(A)-3, /IT/11185,11214,11217,11221,11225,11227/2019-20 Bhopal Nirmal Ramtani IT(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 & ITANo.634/Ind/2025 A.Ys

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

KISHAN ASSUDANI,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessed is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshikishan Assudani, Acit 3(1), बनाम/ Prop. Kishan Assudani, Bhopal Vs. Plot No.6, Mainroad, Gandhi Nagar, Bhopal (Pan:Aeupa8876Q) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Arpit Gaur, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

73,401/-made by the AO on account of disallowance out of purchases by invoking the provisions of s.40A(3) of the Act without properly considering and appreciating that the payments were made to the Government Agent covered under Rule 6DD(b) of the Income-Tax Rules, 1962 and as also, without properly considering and appreciating the written submissions

JASTEJ GOROWARA,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

73,30,464/-, had escaped assessment. In response to the notice under section issued notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed a return of income on 23.05.2016 declaring total income of ₹43,26,048/-. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer examined unsecured loans aggregating to ₹90,00,000/- received from six persons of the Khanduja family

JASTEJ GOROWARA,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

73,30,464/-, had escaped assessment. In response to the notice under section issued notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed a return of income on 23.05.2016 declaring total income of ₹43,26,048/-. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer examined unsecured loans aggregating to ₹90,00,000/- received from six persons of the Khanduja family