MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), INDORE

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

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

Section 249(3) of the Act. The appeals are therefore not admitted and proceeded with, and therefore dismissed in limine. However, without any prejudice to the rejection of appellant's condonation of delay plea resulting in appeals being dismissed in limine, appellant's two appeals are considered for disposal on facts of case as available on record and keeping

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

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

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

Section 249(3) of the Act. The appeals are therefore not admitted and proceeded with, and therefore dismissed in limine. However, without any prejudice to the rejection of appellant's condonation of delay plea resulting in appeals being dismissed in limine, appellant's two appeals are considered for disposal on facts of case as available on record and keeping

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

condoned and these appeals are admitted and heard. 6. The assessee is aggrieved by the late fee imposed by AO u/s 234E for delay filing of Statements of TDS in Form No. 24Q. Admittedly, the Statements relate to Quarter-2 and Quarter-3 of Financial Year 2012-13 and the assessee is claiming that prior to 01.06.2015, there

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

condoned and these appeals are admitted and heard. 6. The assessee is aggrieved by the late fee imposed by AO u/s 234E for delay filing of Statements of TDS in Form No. 24Q. Admittedly, the Statements relate to Quarter-2 and Quarter-3 of Financial Year 2012-13 and the assessee is claiming that prior to 01.06.2015, there

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

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. The assesse has raised following grounds of appeal: 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 passed by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 even

MADHYA PRADESH BHOJ OPEN UNIVERSITY,BHOPAL vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: B.M. 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- 25/1069389336(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

SITARAM MUCHHALA,MARDANA vs. ITO KHARGONE, KHARGONE

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

92,473 are upheld as the appellant has failed to explain the nature and source of the credits and hence did not discharge the burden casted upon him. The appellant's grounds are found to be untenable due to the fact that specific findings in the assessment order have not been controverted by the appellant along with corroborative evidences

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

VIPUL JAIN,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, 5(2), INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivipul Jain Ito, 5(2) 18, Ganesh Colony, Rambag Indore Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agnpj8206E Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2024

delay of 129 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 6. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2 That on the facts

SHREERAM CONSTRUCTIONS,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result we are of the considered opinion that the

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishreeram Construction, Commissioner Of बनाम/ Shop No.2,New Shri Ram Income-Tax Vs. Parisar, Phase I Khajuri Kala, (Appeals) Bhopal, Bhopal (Pan:Abgfs5939P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Govind Rinwa, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of convenience & brevity] before this tribunal as and by way of a second appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-ITBA/NFAC/250/2023- 24/1055303221(1) dated 22/08/2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein

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

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