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

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

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

BHOPAL SWITCHGEARS (P) LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE D C I T 1(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Bhopal Switchgears P. Ltd. Dcit -1(1) Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaacb 6092 J Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2022

condone the delay and proceed for hearing of appeal. Ground No. 1: 5. The issue involved in Ground No. 1 relates to the disallowance of interest of Rs. 4,90,876/-. During assessment proceeding, Ld. AO observed that the assessee has paid a total interest of Rs. 19,63,506/- @ 24% on loans taken from different persons. Ld. AO observed

M/S RANA & JOSHI BUILDTECH P LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pr. Cit-1 Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (Formerly Known As M/S Rana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) Vs. 218 Civil Lines, Below Dainik Bhaskar Office Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcr9858P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .09.2024

condonation of delay and submitted that the assesse has not explained reasonable cause for delay in filing the present appeal and merely shifted the blame to the counsel. Thus Ld. DR has submitted that there is an inordinate delay even after limitation period extended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which expired on 30th May 2022 whereas the present appeal

SMT PUSHPLATA CHANDRAWAT,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CPC , BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Smt. Pushplata Chandrawat, V. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. House No. 34-Bg, Scheme No. 74-C, Vijay Nagar, Indore Pan-Adapc8144L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Anil Kumar Garg & Arpit Gaur, Ca Respondent By: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.03.2023

Section 143(1) for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has filed the present appeal on 24th June, 2022 against the impugned order dated 23rd May, 2021 therefore, there is a delay in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. The Learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the delay

SITARAM MUCHHALA,MARDANA vs. ITO KHARGONE, KHARGONE

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

90,530. Based on information received from the Land Acquisition Officer, Maheshwar Hydro Electric Project, it was found that the appellant received compensation of Rs.24,79,657 for the compulsory acquisition of land and interest of Rs. 14,25,633 for delayed payment of compensation. However, these amounts were not fully disclosed in the return, leading to the issuance

RAJESH PRAJAPATI ,UJJAIN vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1) , UJJAIN

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2013-14 Shri Rajesh Prajapati, A.C.I.T., बनाम/ 15, Naliya Bakhal, Circle 2(1), Ujjain Ujjain Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Alnpp5190Q Assessee By Ms.Sonam Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, we hereby condone the delay in filing present appeal and proceed to adjudicate on merits. GROUND NO. 1: 7. In this ground, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of Rs. 44,32,850/- made by the AO out of deduction of interest expenditure claimed by assessee u/s 36(1)(iii). Page

SHAFIQUE MOHAMMAD,BHOPAL vs. ITO 3(1) BHOPAL, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose, subject

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Shafique Mohammad, Ito-3(1) Hno.40, Rahat Manzil, Bhopal Street No.2, Noor Mahal, बनाम/ Imamigate, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ctppm6867D Assessee By Ms. Sania Farhaz Memon, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2026

section 148 are bad in law and invalid. Ground 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case cash deposited of Rs. 11,15,000 during the relevant assessment year is out of his business income of sweets and past savings of Rs. 3,05,000 and the rest amount was cash gift received from his brothers and sister

BALAJI PHOSPHATES LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCITACIT 1(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibalaji Phosphates Limited, Dcitacit 1(1), 305, Utsav Avenue, Indore Vs. 12/5 Ushaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadcb5654R Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 O R D E R

condonation of delay and submitted that there is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) of 1769 days. The assessee has not explained sufficient cause for such delay and has taken excuse of filing petition u/s 154 of the Act which was already disposed off by the CPC on 14.5.2019 within the period of 3 months from

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

condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari

SHREEPAL HUMAD,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishreepal Humad Pr. Cit-1 Near Civil Hospital, Bus Indore Vs. Stand Road, Manasa Madhya Pradesh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaxph1346 K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21 .06.2023

90 days, that longer period shall apply. IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15-3-2020 till 28- 2-2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of section

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

90,00,000/- under section 68, the CIT(Appeals) observed that the Assessing Officer had examined the issue in detail and that the assessee had failed to discharge the statutory onus of proving creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the loan transactions. In the absence of any effective rebuttal or evidence from the assessee during appellate proceedings

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

90,00,000/- under section 68, the CIT(Appeals) observed that the Assessing Officer had examined the issue in detail and that the assessee had failed to discharge the statutory onus of proving creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the loan transactions. In the absence of any effective rebuttal or evidence from the assessee during appellate proceedings

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER INDORE 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri B.M. Biyaniito-5(1) Indore

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit these appeals and proceed with hearing. 3. The background facts leading to present appeals are such that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate. For AY 2017-18 & 2018-19, the assessee filed its returns/revised

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, CHAAPEHEDA,CHAAPEHEDA vs. NEAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

90,771/- were not proved to be incidental or ancillary to the main objects and, therefore, could not qualify for exemption. Consequently, the income over expenditure of ₹12,51,765/- was treated as unexplained voluntary contribution and added to the total income of the assessee. The total income was thus assessed at ₹12,51,770/- and penalty proceedings under section

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, CHAAPEHEDA,CHAAPEHEDA vs. NEAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

90,771/- were not proved to be incidental or ancillary to the main objects and, therefore, could not qualify for exemption. Consequently, the income over expenditure of ₹12,51,765/- was treated as unexplained voluntary contribution and added to the total income of the assessee. The total income was thus assessed at ₹12,51,770/- and penalty proceedings under section