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

Section (2) of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced and he rejected the request for condonation of delay and dismissed all the three appeals. Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that primarily Ground No. 2 & 3 may please be taken which pertains to passing of ex-parte order by Ld. CIT(A) by not condoning the delay

GOVERDHAN LAL YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. The background facts leading to this appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed return of AY 2015-16 declaring a total income of Rs. Page 3 of 14 Goverdhan Lal Yadav ITA No. 854/Ind/2024- AY: 2015-16 49,130/-. In the return so filed, the assessee declared capital gain from

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

86,119/-, as against the returned Income of Rs. 1,56,090/-, thereby making impugned additions aggregating to a sum of Rs. 10,30,029/- on various counts. 5. That, against the aforesaid order of assessment, I through my ex-counsel, namely, Shri Suyash Bakliwal, preferred an appeal before the then Hon'ble CIT(A), Ujjain

M/S PHOENIX DEVCONS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT4 (1), INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, we hereby condone the delay in filing present appeals and proceed to adjudicate on merits. Facts in brief: 6. The assessee filed return of AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 at a total income of Rs. Nil and Rs. Nil respectively, which were originally assessed vide 1st assessment-order dated

M/S PHOENIX DEVCONS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT4 (1), INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, we hereby condone the delay in filing present appeals and proceed to adjudicate on merits. Facts in brief: 6. The assessee filed return of AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 at a total income of Rs. Nil and Rs. Nil respectively, which were originally assessed vide 1st assessment-order dated

M/S PHOENIX DEVCONS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT4 (1), INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, we hereby condone the delay in filing present appeals and proceed to adjudicate on merits. Facts in brief: 6. The assessee filed return of AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 at a total income of Rs. Nil and Rs. Nil respectively, which were originally assessed vide 1st assessment-order dated

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

condoned the delay in filing the present appeal. The assessee has raised following grounds: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Pr. CIT erred in setting-aside the order as passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 by invoking

JANTA NAGRIK SAHAKARI SAKH SAMITI MARYADIT DEWAS,DEWAS vs. AO DEWAS, BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2019-20 Janta Nagrik Sahakari Ao Sakh Samiti Maryadit, Dewas बनाम/ Dewas Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaatj8320Q Assessee By Shri Siddharth Mahajan, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

delay in filing the appeal which was 1 not condoned by the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A)-6 Mumbai and treating the appeal as non- est in violation of the principle of natural justice which is unjustified and unlawful and based on incorrect facts of the case. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

HARE RAM MANDIR TRUST,BHOPAL vs. ITO-EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

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

86,395/-  As per the ITR the assessee has shown Capital expenditure of Rs 32,130/- As per the reply dated 06.05.2022, the assessee has claimed Capital expenditure of Rs 32,130/-. As per the Income Expenditure account for AY 2014-15, it has been shown as Rs 10,66,435/-.  Order U/s 143(1) was passed

HARE RAM MANDIR TRUST,BHOPAL vs. ITO -EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

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

86,395/-  As per the ITR the assessee has shown Capital expenditure of Rs 32,130/- As per the reply dated 06.05.2022, the assessee has claimed Capital expenditure of Rs 32,130/-. As per the Income Expenditure account for AY 2014-15, it has been shown as Rs 10,66,435/-.  Order U/s 143(1) was passed

HARI SINGH,RAISEN vs. ITO RAISEN, RAISEN

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

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshihari Singh, Ito, Raisen बनाम/ S/O Sh. Dhara Singh, 86,Vill- Vs. Semri Khurd, Tehsil- Sultanpur, Raisen,Bhopal, Mp (Pan: Aiaps1986M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

86,Vill- Vs. Semri khurd, Tehsil- Sultanpur, Raisen,Bhopal, MP (PAN: AIAPS1986M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 15.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.: This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein

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. Andritz Hydro Private Ltd. ITANo.198 & 199/Ind/2020 13. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee co. has two business units viz. Mandideep Unit near Bhopal and Prithla Unit near Faridabad. Till 2008, these units were housed under 2 separate companies

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

condone the delay in filing appeal. 11. The appellant prays to delete the demand of tax and interest or to remand the case in the interest of justice.” 4. The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee acts as a Drawing & Disbursing Officer (DDO) and oversees the welfare programme undertaken by Govt. of Madhya Pradesh

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

condone the delay in filing appeal. 11. The appellant prays to delete the demand of tax and interest or to remand the case in the interest of justice.” 4. The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee acts as a Drawing & Disbursing Officer (DDO) and oversees the welfare programme undertaken by Govt. of Madhya Pradesh

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

condone the delay in filing appeal. 11. The appellant prays to delete the demand of tax and interest or to remand the case in the interest of justice.” 4. The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee acts as a Drawing & Disbursing Officer (DDO) and oversees the welfare programme undertaken by Govt. of Madhya Pradesh

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

condone the delay in filing appeal. 11. The appellant prays to delete the demand of tax and interest or to remand the case in the interest of justice.” 4. The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee acts as a Drawing & Disbursing Officer (DDO) and oversees the welfare programme undertaken by Govt. of Madhya Pradesh

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

condone the delay in filing appeal. 11. The appellant prays to delete the demand of tax and interest or to remand the case in the interest of justice.” 4. The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee acts as a Drawing & Disbursing Officer (DDO) and oversees the welfare programme undertaken by Govt. of Madhya Pradesh