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

MAHESH CHANDRA AGARWAL,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), DELHI

Appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimahesh Chandra Agrawal, Cit(A), बनाम/ Prop. M/S Swarn Pushp Nfac, Vs. Jwellers, Delhi Sarafa Chowk, Indore (Pan:Aavpa8254B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gowind Rinwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

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/250/2022- 23/1047981997(1) dated 13.12.2022 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NIRMAL RAMTANI,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

condone the delay as sufficient cause is shown. Accordingly we admit the Appeal. 3.2 The Id. AR then submitted that search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was conducted on 04.08.2017 at premises belonging to Pradeep Saraiya and associates. This group is mainly engaged in business activities of real estate, construction and education

SMT SADHNA VOHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO 1(3), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

delay of 7 days is condoned. Appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Ground No.1 is against legality of notice u/s 153C of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written submissions. It was submitted that the notice issued u/s 153C of the Act is invalid and void-ab-initio as there

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

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,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

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

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), 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

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