M/S. GREATER KAILASH HOSPITAL (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, being not maintainable is

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14

section 32 of the Act of Rs. 2,62,09,454/- 4. The appellant reserves its right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by it” Application of the assessee for condonation of delay in the Tribunal and for admission of new/additional grounds of appeal dated 18.11.2022: 3. The ld. Representative of the assessee

SHRI DEEPAK SONI, BHYOPAL vs. THE ITO 4 (3), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhashri Deepak Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Acyps8020J) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Kumar Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambey Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Avgps0484F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The brief facts leading to this appeal are such that the assessee- individual is engaged in jewellery business the name of M/s Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal. For AY 2017-18 under consideration, the assessee filed return

SANDEEP KUMAR SONI,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 4(3), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhashri Deepak Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Acyps8020J) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Kumar Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambey Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Avgps0484F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The brief facts leading to this appeal are such that the assessee- individual is engaged in jewellery business the name of M/s Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal. For AY 2017-18 under consideration, the assessee filed return

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

RAJESH CHOUDHARY,C SECTOR SONAGIRI vs. ITO 5-(2), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Rajesh Choudhary, Ito, C Sector, 5(2), बनाम/ Sonagiri Bhopal Vs. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Acrpc4222D Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2024

section 253(5) of the Act. Ld. DR was fair enough in not having any objection. Therefore, the delay is condoned and appeal is admitted. 4. During hearing, it emerged that both of the lower-authorities have passed ex-parte orders. It further emerged that the AO has made an addition of Rs. 38,500/- by disallowing deductions under Chapter

SHRI DINESH NIGAM,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2 (3), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

condonation of delay. 2. The assessee has also raised following additional grounds: 2 [ITA No.457/Ind/2017] [Mr. Dinesh Nigam, Indore] “That, the Learned ITO erred in law and on facts in adopting the value determined by the stamp valuation authority at Rs.1,00,60,000/- for the calculation of LTCG while he ought to have adopted the amount actually received

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

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

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961 [herein after referred to as the Act for sake of brevity] before this tribunal as & by way of a second Appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-CIT(A)-3, /IT/11185,11214,11217,11221,11225,11227/2019-20 Bhopal Nirmal Ramtani IT(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 & ITANo.634/Ind/2025 A.Ys

SANJAY SAHU,BHOPAL vs. THE TH4E ITO 2(1), BYHOPAL

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2010-11 Sanjay Sahu, Ito 2(1), H.No.98-A Sector, Bhopal बनाम/ Kasturba Nagar, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Apyps1707D Assessee By Shri Shashank Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed return declaring a Gross Total Income of Rs. 2,97

KISHAN ASSUDANI,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessed is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshikishan Assudani, Acit 3(1), बनाम/ Prop. Kishan Assudani, Bhopal Vs. Plot No.6, Mainroad, Gandhi Nagar, Bhopal (Pan:Aeupa8876Q) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Arpit Gaur, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

97,91,650/- for the relevant assessment year as against the returned income of Rs.1,73,84,280/- thereby making additions of Rs.2,24,07,370/- by framing an Assessment Order under s.143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, which is quite unjustified, unwarranted, arbitrary, bad-in-law and void-ab-initio. 4. That, without prejudice to the above

SUB REGISTRAR SARDARPUR, DHAR,DHAR vs. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (1 & C1), BHOPAL

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

condoned the delay of 42 days and admit the appeal for hearing. - 4. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is local authority under the State Government of Madhya Pradesh in the name of Office of Sub Registrar Sardarpur, Dhar. As per the provisions of Section 285BA of the Act the assessee is required

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. MARAL OVERSEAS LTD, KHARGONE

In the result appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-4(1), Indore Maral Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Maral Sarovar, V& Po Vs. Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal

condone the delay. There are no malafides. The cause of the delay is bonafidely explained basis bonafide reasons. The appeal is admitted & taken up for hearing. 3.3 During the course of the hearing thereafter the Ld. AR for the assessee company addressed this Tribunal first, for which the Ld. DR had no objection. 3.4 The Ld. AR stated that

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condoned. 5 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others 5. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of government works contract for construction of roads. The income-tax return of the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11 was filed on 15.10.2010 declaring total income

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condoned. 5 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others 5. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of government works contract for construction of roads. The income-tax return of the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11 was filed on 15.10.2010 declaring total income

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condoned. 5 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others 5. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of government works contract for construction of roads. The income-tax return of the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11 was filed on 15.10.2010 declaring total income

SHRI VISHWAMITRA SHIKSHAN SAMITI,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Vishwamitra Income-Tax Officer, Shikshan Samiti, 5(1), 104, J. B. Complex, Indore. बनाम/ Race Course Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aajts1473J Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2024

97,310/- after claiming exemption of Rs. 4,83,95,673/- u/s 11/12. The AO processed intimation u/s 143(1) wherein he denied assessee’s exemption u/s 11/12 for non-filing of audit report in Form No. 10B which is required for exemption u/s 11/12. Aggrieved by AO’s action, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal

BALKISHAN KOUSHAL ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

condone delay u/s 249(3) of the Act, 1961, hence appeal-order is prejudice, unjustified and deserve to be set-aside according to law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), Faceless Delhi had not considered the response filed by appellant, hence appeal-order is incomplete, prejudice, unjustified and deserve to be set aside according

BALKISHAN KOSHAL ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

condone delay u/s 249(3) of the Act, 1961, hence appeal-order is prejudice, unjustified and deserve to be set-aside according to law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), Faceless Delhi had not considered the response filed by appellant, hence appeal-order is incomplete, prejudice, unjustified and deserve to be set aside according

SHREE RAJENDRA SURI SAH SAKH SANTHA MYD,RAJGARH, DHAR vs. THE ITO, DHAR, DHAR

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

condoning the delay in filing of appeal even when there was justifiable reason for delay in filing of the said appeal 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs. 17,11,287/- to the total income of the appellant on account of rejection