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

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

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

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

PRATHMIK KRSHI SHAK SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT KHATEDAKALA,KHATEDAKALA vs. CIT, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani\Nand\Nshri Paresh M. Joshi\Nita No. 702/Ind/2024\N Assessment Year:2018-19\Nprathmik Krshi Shak\Nnfac\Nsahkari Sanstha Maryadit,\Ndelhi\Nkhatedakala,\Nsarra, Distt-Sarra,\Nबनाम /\Nvs.\Nbetul\N(Assessee/Appellant)\N(Revenue/Respondent)\Npan: Aacap7241F\Nassessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar\Nrevenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing 24.07.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025\Nआदेश / Order\Nper B.M. Biyani, A.M.:\Nfeeling Aggrieved By Order Of First-Appeal Dated 16.04.2024 Passed By\Nlearned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Which\Nin Turn Arises Out Of Assessment-Order Dated 17.03.2023 Passed By Learned\Nassessment Unit Of Income-Tax Department [“Ao”] U/S 147 R.W.S.144 &\N144B Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act"] For Assessment-Year [“Ay"] 2018-19,\Nthe Assessee Has Filed This Appeal On The Grounds Mentioned In Appeal\Nmemo (Form No. 36).\Nprathmik Krshi Shak Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Khatedakala\Nita No. 702/Ind/2024 - Ay 2018-19\N2. Ld. Ar For Assessee Submitted That The Impugned Order Was Passed On\N16.04.2024 But The Same Came To The Knowledge Of Assessee On 17.07.2024\Nand Therefore The Assessee Has Mentioned The \"Date Of Service\" As\N“17.07.2024\" In Form No.

90 days is\ntechnical in nature since the order was not served physically. Be that as it\nmay the Appellant submits that the impugned delay being attributable to\ntechnical reason of non service of intimation and bonafide belief of\nAppellant is prayed condoned. I would request your honours kindly to\ncondone the same and entertain the impugned appeal on merits

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

section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Page 5 of 27 ITANo.229/Ind/2023 M/s Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. 4.1 Thus, the period of limitation has been extended upto 28.02.2022 as this

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 LAURELS SCHOOL AND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTION P.LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Laurels School & V. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. Management Institutions Pvt. Ltd. 7, Press Complex, A.B. Road, Behind Dainik Bhaskar Press, Indore. Pan-Aaacl4970D (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: 06.04.2023

90 days, that longer period shall apply. 2 Assessment Year. 2018-19 M/s. Laurels School and Management Institution P. Ltd. v. DCIT 1(1), Indore. 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

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

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean

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

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

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

delay of\n78/74 days is condoned taking into account the explanation given by\nassessee in above application in the light of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs\nMst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 having settled\nthe law long back that all such technical aspects must make a way for the\ncause of substantial justice.\n4. Brief facts

SANTOSH CHATURVEDI,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purpose

90 days grace\nperiod given by Supreme Court from 28.02.2022 onwards and\nhence the query was raised why there was an abnormal delay to\nwhich the Ld. AR had no plausible explanation to offer to the\nBench. The Bench also pointed out that the delay before the Ld.\nCIT(A) is admitted position as same is recorded in the \"impugned

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

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

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

Appeals are dismissed

section 253(5) of the Act empowers the\nITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a\n“sufficient cause\" for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. It is also\na settled position by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land\nAcquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387\nthat

SANTOSH CHATURVEDI,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purpose

90 days grace\nperiod given by Supreme Court from 28.02.2022 onwards and\nhence the query was raised why there was an abnormal delay to\nwhich the Ld. AR had no plausible explanation to offer to the\nBench. The Bench also pointed out that the delay before the Ld.\nCIT(A) is admitted position as same is recorded in the \"impugned