M/S NEO SACK LTD. vs. THE ACIT 4(2),

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing No

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

condonation of the delay. We, therefore, dismiss ITA No. 413/Ind/20107 and CO Nos. 75 & 76/Ind/2009 being barred by limitation. Even otherwise none is appearing on behalf of the assessee and the appeals and cross objections are even otherwise liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. 11. Now we would like to deal with ITA Nos. 262/Ind/2008 and 263/Ind/2008 filed

M/S PLATINUM HORAZINE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

setting-aside the ex-parte decree for which application for condonation of delay was filed. The trial Court having found that sufficient cause was made out for condonation of delay condoned the delay. The Hon`ble Supreme Court while restoring the order of the trial Court has of observed in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 as under: “8. The appellant

M/S KALINDI PLACE ,BHOPSL vs. ACIT CPC ,BANGLORE, BANGLORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

condonation of delay in filing appeal–Though revenue has merits in submission, however, one more opportunity for being heard is provided to assesse in the interest of justice–Matter accordingly remanded back to CIT(A) to decide case as per merits–Appeal filed by assesse is allowed. 4 Ground regarding allowance of unabsorbed depreciation consistently allowed in earlier year

VIJAY KUMAR PAREKH,INDORE vs. WARD1(1) INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivijay Kumar Parekh Ito-Ward -1(1) 406-407 Apollo Tower, 2Mg Indore Road Vs. Indore-452001 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afkpp 3277M Assessee By Shri Abhinava Jain & Sudhir Padliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2024

set of loss under the head income from other sources of Rs.687731/- as per provisions of section 70 of the Act. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the condonation of delay

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

condone the delay which had occurred while filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee herein is a Merchant Navy Officer and by the very nature of his job he is required to be on the sea on a ship. The assessee herein Page 9 of 22 Manoj Kumar Gangadharan ITA No. 670&671 /Ind/2024 - A.Ys

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 5(1), INDORE vs. M/S. SU-SAMPADA, INDORE

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borada.Y. 2011-12

condone the delay. Now, we deal the merits of the case. 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting the revised return filed on 10.9.2012 beyond the time allowed u/s 139(5) in which claim of deduction u/s 80IB

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Condonation of Delay 2. The learned CIT-DR submitted that due to office procedure for filing appeal, the appeal against the order of learned CIT-3, Bhopal dated 27.08.2021; the appeal could be filed on 15.11.2021 with the delay of 8 days. The learned AR in all fairness, excepted that the delay of 8 days has been cause

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Condonation of Delay 2. The learned CIT-DR submitted that due to office procedure for filing appeal, the appeal against the order of learned CIT-3, Bhopal dated 27.08.2021; the appeal could be filed on 15.11.2021 with the delay of 8 days. The learned AR in all fairness, excepted that the delay of 8 days has been cause

ANDRITZ HYDRO P LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 was filed on 30.11.2014 declaring income of Rs.18,14,79,168/- which was set off entirely against the brought forward loss

M/S PHARMA TRADERS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Pharma Traders Acit- 3(1) Pvt. Ltd., Indore बनाम/ 18/2, Dewas Naka, Vs. Lasudia Mori, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aadcp3277A Appellant By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ca Revenue By Shri K. G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2018 आदेश / O R D E R

loss during F.Y. 2015-16 rose up to Rs.18.20 crore which certainly made vast impact on the regular and day to day working of the company. 4. In the affidavit, it is mentioned that the person looking after the legal and taxation matter left the job and there was no one to look after the taxation work at the point

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)

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 declaring a total income of Rs. 8,73,380/-. The case was selected under scrutiny

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)

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 declaring a total income of Rs. 8,73,380/-. The case was selected under scrutiny

JANTA NAGRIK SAHAKARI SAKH SAMITI MARYADIT DEWAS,DEWAS vs. AO DEWAS, BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2019-20 Janta Nagrik Sahakari Ao Sakh Samiti Maryadit, Dewas बनाम/ Dewas Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaatj8320Q Assessee By Shri Siddharth Mahajan, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

set off of brought forward losses. Ld. AR submitted that there is a “sufficient cause” for delay and hence the CIT(A) ought to have condoned

M/S. M. LODHA IMPEX,RATLAM vs. THE ITO-1, RATLAM

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 185/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S.M.Lodha Impex, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 117-118, Manak Chowk, Ward 1, Ratlam. Ratlam.

loss of Rs. 5075/- on 30-10-2000 and filed revised return on 9th April, 2001, claiming refund of TDS of Rs.1,75,815/-. The assesse also filed application for rectification u/s 154 on 3rd November, 2004. Then assesse filed application u/s 119(1)(b)(c) on 21st December, 2004 before CIT, Ujjain. The CIT, Ujjain passed order

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

set aside. 9. The appellant denies liabilities of interest u/s 234 A, B & C. 10. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete all or to modify any of above grounds and to pursue any other or further grounds as may be required.” 3. The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that CIT(A) has dismissed

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

condoned the delay in filing the present appeal. The assessee has raised following grounds: “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 as passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 by invoking

ADIM JATI SEVA SAHKRI SAMITI MYDT FOOLMAL,ALIRAJPUR vs. ITO, JHABUA, JHABUA

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

condone the delay as sufficient cause is shown the delay is not deliberate. Reasons for delay are bonafidely explained. Appeal admitted and taken up for hearing. 3.2 The Ld. AR then invited our attention to internal page 1, unnumbered para 1 of the “impugned assessement order” and submitted that in the assessment proceedings only part compliance could be made

SCIENCE FORUM FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH TAKSHSHILA JUNIOR COLLEGE,UJJAIN vs. CIT(A), UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2014-15

Delay condoned. Matter admitted and taken up for hearing. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That the return of Income (ROI) for Assessment Year 2014- 15 was filed on 31.10.2014 declaring total income at Rs.NIL. 2.2 That the case of the assessee was selected under scrutiny and assessment was done u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2016 and assessed income