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

85,400/-) 5. Without prejudice, the Ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 61,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. (Tax Effect :18,84,900/-) 6. Without prejudice, the Ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 60,470/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. (Tax Effect

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

85,400/-) 5. Without prejudice, the Ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 61,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. (Tax Effect :18,84,900/-) 6. Without prejudice, the Ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 60,470/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. (Tax Effect

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

85,400/-) 5. Without prejudice, the Ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 61,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. (Tax Effect :18,84,900/-) 6. Without prejudice, the Ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 60,470/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. (Tax Effect

RADHESHYAM,VILLAGE SEVDA , ASHTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiradheyshyam, Cit (A), बनाम/ Village Sevda, Nfac Vs. Ashta, Delhi Madhya Pradesh (Pan:Cezpr5392R) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2025 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/250/2023- 24/1059089386(1) dated 27.12.2023 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

SMT. ARUNA JAIN,MEGHNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER JHABUA, JHABUA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Aruna Jain, Ito 512, Near Railway Station, Jhabua बनाम/ Meghnagar, Jhabua Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ainpj0505E Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Shri Nishit Doshi, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

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 background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual did not file any return of AY 2011-12. The AO, on the basis of AIR information, came to know that

SHIVNARAYAN RAJPUT,HOSHANGABAD, MADHYA PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 ITARSI, AAYKAR BHAWAN, ITARSI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishivnarayan Rajput, Ito, Ward-1, बनाम/ House No.33

85,028/-. That the aforesaid assessment order is dated 12.12.2017 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. A bare simple perusal of the “impugned assessment order” shows that despite several opportunities given to the assessee as and by way of number of the notice(s) issued under the Act, the assessee has remained NON COMPLIANT which

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

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

SCIENCE FORUM FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH,GRAM MINDIA, SANVER ROAD vs. CIT(A), UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2017-18

Delay condoned. Matter admitted and taken up for hearing. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That an information was received in respect of assessee through AIMs module of TBA that the assessee during the period of demonetization from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 had made cash deposits amounting to Rs.42,70,836/- in the bank accounts maintained by it. 2.2 That notices

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

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

LATE SHRI BALKRISHAN JOSHI (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI BHOOPENDRA JOSHI),INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2008-09 Late Shri Balkrishan Joshi Income-Tax Officer, (Through L/H Shri 5(1), Bhoopendra Joshi), Indore बनाम/ 541, Alok Nagar, Vs. Kanadia Road, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abjpj 0180 C Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Bavesh Agrawal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.05.2024

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. This is the 2nd round of litigation by assessee before us. The background facts are such that the assessee filed return of income for AY 2008-09 on 31.07.2008 declaring a total income

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

In the result appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-4(1), Indore Maral Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Maral Sarovar, V& Po Vs. Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal

condone the delay. There are no malafides. The cause of the delay is bonafidely explained basis bonafide reasons. The appeal is admitted & taken up for hearing. 3.3 During the course of the hearing thereafter the Ld. AR for the assessee company addressed this Tribunal first, for which the Ld. DR had no objection. 3.4 The Ld. AR stated that

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)

85,298 to Rs. 2,98,14,793/- as on 08.11.2016. Page 4 of 25 Sh. Prakash Chandra Gupta ITA No. 369/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 2.15 The assessee used to deposit the cash regularly & also withdraw the cash from time to time. 2.16 The Assessee has no answer for the withdrawal of cash from the bank when more than sufficient cash

M/S INDORE MANDAL DAK TAR KARAMCHARI SEHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,INDORE vs. THE ITO 5 (1) , INDORE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 80P under chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as is admissible deduction to a co-operative society. The addition therefore made by the AO is totally wrong and without considering the facts of the case. 4. That the appellant craves to leave, add, alter or amend any of the ground at or before hearing.” M/s. Indore

ABHAY KUMAR JAIN,RAISEN vs. PR CIT -2 , BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of Assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Abhay Kumar Jain, Pr. Cit-2 Old Bus Stand, Begumganj बनाम/ Bhopal Raisen Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Afqpj 0679 F Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ar Revenue By None Date Of Hearing 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2022

delay, we are persuaded to condone the same and the appeal is proceeded for hearing. 4. By means of various grounds raised in appeal-memo, which we do not reproduce for the sake of brevity, the only grievance of assessee is that the revision-order passed Ld. PCIT u/s 263 alleging the assessment-order passed u/s 143(3) as erroneous

M.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee company is engaged in the Financial Assistance for industrial development and infrastructure. It declared total loss at Rs.1,55,62,351/- in the return filed on 30.09.2015. The case was selected for limited

SHRI VISHWAMITRA SHIKSHAN SAMITI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2020-21 Shri Vishwamitra Income-Tax Officer, Shikshan Samiti, 5(1), 104, J. B. Complex, Indore. बनाम/ Race Course Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aajts1473J Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2024

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. Although the assessee has raised several grievances of general nature in grounds regarding illegalities in the assessment made by AO, during the course of hearing the Ld. AR for assessee did not make submissions