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

Appeals are dismissed

condone delay, admit these appeals and proceed with\nhearing.\n3. The background facts leading to present appeals are such that the\nassessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate. For AY\n2017-18 & 2018-19, the assessee filed its returns/revised returns of income\nu/s 139 declaring total incomes of Rs. Nil (with current year loss

JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee before us are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

96 days (in ITA No.580/Ind/2025) and 89 days (in ITA Nos. 561 to 564/Ind/2025) may kindly be condoned. The reason cited for delay in filing of appeal is the Accountant, who was looking into the matter, left the job without intimation and, therefore, the assessee had no knowledge with regard to passing of the order

JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee before us are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

96 days (in ITA No.580/Ind/2025) and 89 days (in ITA Nos. 561 to 564/Ind/2025) may kindly be condoned. The reason cited for delay in filing of appeal is the Accountant, who was looking into the matter, left the job without intimation and, therefore, the assessee had no knowledge with regard to passing of the order

KAMLESH MOTWANI,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-2(1),BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with\nhearing.\n4.\nLd. AR for assessee submits that the section 250(6) of the Income-tax\nAct, 1961 provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the\nappeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the\ndecision thereon and the reason for the decision.". He further submits that

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

Appeals are dismissed

condone delay, admit these appeals and proceed with\nhearing.\n3. The background facts leading to present appeals are such that the\nassessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate. For AY\n2017-18 & 2018-19, the assessee filed its returns/revised returns of income\nu/s 139 declaring total incomes of Rs. Nil (with current year loss

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

ZYKA MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee before us are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

96 days (in ITA No.580/Ind/2025) and 89 days (in ITA\nNos. 561 to 564/Ind/2025) may kindly be condoned. The reason cited for\ndelay in filing of appeal is the Accountant, who was looking into the\nmatter, left the job without intimation and, therefore, the assessee had no\nknowledge with regard to passing of the order

INDORE PRAGATISHIL SAHAKARI SAKH SANSTHA MARYADIT,INDORE vs. NFAC, DELHI, INDORE

Appeal stand allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2018-19 Indore Pragatishil Income Tax Department, Sahakari Sakh Sanstha Nfa, बनाम/ Maryadit, Delhi Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaaai3124L Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2024

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merit. 4. The assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds: “(1) The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 10,38,997/- being interest received on fixed deposit on the bank as income from other sources. (2) It was proved before

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

96,836 U/s 270A of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. AO has erred in passing and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the impugned penalty order without affording any opportunity of being heard against the principles of natural justice. 3. That the impugned assessment order and impugned

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

96,836 U/s 270A of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. AO has erred in passing and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the impugned penalty order without affording any opportunity of being heard against the principles of natural justice. 3. That the impugned assessment order and impugned

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, CHAAPEHEDA,CHHAPIHEDA 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

96,836 U/s 270A of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. AO has erred in passing and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the impugned penalty order without affording any opportunity of being heard against the principles of natural justice. 3. That the impugned assessment order and impugned

M/S. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNA vs. THE ACIT-1(1), INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

delay is condoned. 5. The assessee is engaged in the business of Tyre and Allied Products manufacturing. The assessee has taken Radial Tyre Manufacturing Technology and use of Bridgestone brand of manufactured products for its entrepreneurial venture in India. The assessee filed original return of income on 27.11.2015 declaring total income at Rs. NIL. On perusal of Form 3CEB filed

SHAILESH KALWADIA (HUF) ,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BPL-C-(91)(1), UJJAIN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

96,350/-. The total income as per the return of income was at Rs.1,53,375/-. The addition of Rs.18,42,978/- was made as income from undisclosed sources in guise of share transaction. The tax on total income assessed was directed to be computed. That the aforesaid “Assessment order” bears no: - ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1041857732(1) and that the same is dated

SHAILESH KALWADIA (HUF),UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BPL-C(91)(1), BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

96,350/-. The total income as per the return of income was at Rs.1,53,375/-. The addition of Rs.18,42,978/- was made as income from undisclosed sources in guise of share transaction. The tax on total income assessed was directed to be computed. That the aforesaid “Assessment order” bears no: - ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1041857732(1) and that the same is dated

ADIM JATI SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI MYDT JOBAT,ALIRAJPUR vs. FACELESS ASSESSMENT OFFICER, ALIRAJPUR

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti National Faceless बनाम/ Mydt., Assessment Centre Vs. 01, Jobat, Jobat, Delhi Alirajpur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaala0577E Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in business of providing credit facilities to its members. For AY 2020-21, the assessee filed return declaring total income of Rs. 40/-. In the return of income so filed, the assessee claimed deduction

ZYKA MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, BHOPAL

96 days (in ITA No.580/Ind/2025) and 89 days (in ITA\nNos. 561 to 564/Ind/2025) may kindly be condoned. The reason cited for\ndelay in filing of appeal is the Accountant, who was looking into the\nmatter, left the job without intimation and, therefore, the assessee had no\nknowledge with regard to passing of the order

ZYKA MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee before us are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

96 days (in ITA No.580/Ind/2025) and 89 days (in ITA\nNos. 561 to 564/Ind/2025) may kindly be condoned. The reason cited for\ndelay in filing of appeal is the Accountant, who was looking into the\nmatter, left the job without intimation and, therefore, the assessee had no\nknowledge with regard to passing of the order

ZYKA MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee before us are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

96 days (in ITA No.580/Ind/2025) and 89 days (in ITA\nNos. 561 to 564/Ind/2025) may kindly be condoned. The reason cited for\ndelay in filing of appeal is the Accountant, who was looking into the\nmatter, left the job without intimation and, therefore, the assessee had no\nknowledge with regard to passing of the order