KISHORE SEWANI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(4), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical\npurposes

short-term capital gain of Rs.1,02,34,840/- from sale of\nimpugned agricultural land, (ii) low household expenses of Rs.80,000/-\nand (iii) Unexplained expenses of Rs.67,430/- registration and stamp duty\nof new property purchased. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-\nappeal but the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order due to non-prosecution by\nassessee

MOHAR SINGH GOUR,BHOPAL vs. ITO NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed is non payment of advance

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

condones the delay. Appeal is admitted and taken up for hearing. 2.3 Since in the both the appeals common question arises with consent of the parties they are being heard together and is being disposed off by this common order. 2.4 That as and by way of an assessment order bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1053006826(1) dated 19.05.2023 the income

MOHAR SINGH GOUR,BHOPAL vs. ITO NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed is non payment of advance

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

condones the delay. Appeal is admitted and taken up for hearing. 2.3 Since in the both the appeals common question arises with consent of the parties they are being heard together and is being disposed off by this common order. 2.4 That as and by way of an assessment order bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1053006826(1) dated 19.05.2023 the income

KISHORE SEWANI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi & Kishore Sewani, Ito-1(4) बनाम/ House No.33, Parika Bhopal Vs. Society, Phase-1, Chunabhatti, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Ankps8260M Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025

short-term capital gain of Rs. 1,02,34,840/- from sale of impugned agricultural land, (ii) low household expenses of Rs. 80,000/-, and (iii) Unexplained expenses of Rs. 67,430/- registration and stamp duty of new property purchased. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first- appeal but the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order due to non-prosecution

GUNVEER SINGH CHHABRA ,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -1, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

short ‘the Act’) arising out of order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer under S.143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2015-16. 2. There is a delay of 48 days in preferring instant appeal before us. The date of receipt of order passed by Learned PCIT is stated to be received on 26.03.2021 and due to Pandemic - Covid

SARWAR MOHD. KHAN,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 (1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

delay is hereby condoned. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of call no adjournment has been sought for. However, a short submission has been filed by the assessee in favour of the case made out. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. on the other hand relied upon the order passed by the authorities below

SHILPA MALIK,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(3), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical\npurpose

delay should be\ncondoned and accordingly we condone the same and admit the\nappeal. The Ld. AR then submitted before us that the\n\"impugned order” of the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order which is\na wrong and uncalled for. It was prayed that the matter may\nkindly be restored back to the Ld. CIT(A) with

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Accordingly the appeal filed by the assesse on 04.03.2022 is treated as within the limitation. The assesse has raised following grounds: “1. That the order of the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore u/s 263 of the Act is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 2. That the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income

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

Term Capital Gains (LTCG) as bogus LTCG on transfer of equity shares as claimed exempt income u/s 10(38) of the IT Act, by the Appellant, which is wrong and baseless. 3. Application of Section 68 and Section 115BBE: The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of income covered u/s 68 of the IT Act being unexplained

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

Term Capital Gains (LTCG) as bogus LTCG on transfer of equity shares as claimed exempt income u/s 10(38) of the IT Act, by the Appellant, which is wrong and baseless. 3. Application of Section 68 and Section 115BBE: The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of income covered u/s 68 of the IT Act being unexplained

ONEEL VERMA,NASHIK vs. ITO-5(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

short “NFAC”) Delhi vide order dated 29-11-2024 passed for A.Y. 2009-10. I.TA No. 394/IND/2025 A.Y. 2009-10 2 Oneel Verma Vs. ITO 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) CIT(A) has erred in upholding

DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S MAA UMIYA AGRITECH PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit 1(1) M/S. Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Indore 119, A.B. Road, Aloo Pyaj Mandi, Vs. Indore (Appellant / (Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn8230F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Accordingly, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo- moto cognizance for extension of the limitation, the appeal of the revenue is treated as filed within the period of limitation. 3. The Revenue has raised following ground of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting

SHREEPAL HUMAD,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishreepal Humad Pr. Cit-1 Near Civil Hospital, Bus Indore Vs. Stand Road, Manasa Madhya Pradesh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaxph1346 K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21 .06.2023

condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Accordingly, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo- moto cognizance for extension of the limitation, the appeal of the assessee is treated as filed within limitation. 5. In the case of assessee the assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 15.12.2018 at a total income of Rs.10

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

capital gains were clearly available before the\nAssessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings and that the\nRevenue had not brought any material before it, which was not disclosed by\nthe assessee in the original return of income. Thus, the Tribunal concluded\nthat there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material\nfact relevant

ACIT,CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S KRTI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE LTD , INDORE

In the result, appeals of the Revenue ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2017-18 Acit Central-2, M/S Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Indore Ltd., Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aacck1840M Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit Central-2, M/S Keti Sangam Infrastructure India Ltd., Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aadck0129Q Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Assessees By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

short the ‘Act’) dated 29.12.2017 & 15.12.2017 respectively framed by DCIT(Central)-2, Indore. The revenue has raised following ground of appeal In ITA 14/Ind/20121 in the case of Keti Sangam Infrastructure India ltd. for A.Y. 2017-18: “ On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S KALLYAN TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the Revenue ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2017-18 Acit Central-2, M/S Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Indore Ltd., Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aacck1840M Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit Central-2, M/S Keti Sangam Infrastructure India Ltd., Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aadck0129Q Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Assessees By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

short the ‘Act’) dated 29.12.2017 & 15.12.2017 respectively framed by DCIT(Central)-2, Indore. The revenue has raised following ground of appeal In ITA 14/Ind/20121 in the case of Keti Sangam Infrastructure India ltd. for A.Y. 2017-18: “ On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3.Since the issue for adjudication in these appeals is identical; they were heard together at the request of parties and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. 4. The background facts leading to these appeals are such that the asesesee was a director

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3.Since the issue for adjudication in these appeals is identical; they were heard together at the request of parties and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. 4. The background facts leading to these appeals are such that the asesesee was a director