SCIENCE FORUM FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH,GRAM MINDIA, SANVER ROAD vs. CIT(A), UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2017-18

Delay condoned. Matter admitted and taken up for hearing. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That an information was received in respect of assessee through AIMs module of TBA that the assessee during the period of demonetization from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 had made cash deposits amounting to Rs.42,70,836/- in the bank accounts maintained by it. 2.2 That notices

MH BROTHERS ,RAISEN vs. THE ITO , RAISEN

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

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

Depreciation on Car be held to be bad and unjustified and be deleted. Ground.5. That the disallowance of Rs.31,095/- out of Tanker Repairs & Maintenance be held to be bad and unjustified and be deleted. Ground.6. That the disallowance of Rs.27,510/- out of Repairs & Maintenance be held to be bad and unjustified and be deleted. Ground.7 That the disallowance

MH BROTHERS ,RAISEN vs. THE ITO , RAISEN

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

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

Depreciation on Car be held to be bad and unjustified and be deleted. Ground.5. That the disallowance of Rs.31,095/- out of Tanker Repairs & Maintenance be held to be bad and unjustified and be deleted. Ground.6. That the disallowance of Rs.27,510/- out of Repairs & Maintenance be held to be bad and unjustified and be deleted. Ground.7 That the disallowance

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

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

condoning the delay in filing of appeal even when there was justifiable reason for delay in filing of the said appeal\n\n2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs.\n\n17,11,287/- to the total income of the appellant on account

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

delay of\n78/74 days is condoned taking into account the explanation given by\nassessee in above application in the light of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs\nMst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 having settled\nthe law long back that all such technical aspects must make a way for the\ncause of substantial justice.\n4. Brief facts

KIRAN KUMAR IKHE,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(2), BHOPAL

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

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

delay of 76 days in filing the appeal for A.Y.2015-16 is condoned. 6. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: For A.Y.2015-16 Page 2 of 6 ITANo.395 & 396/Ind/2023 Ashish Kothari “1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of loss of Rs. 16,38,100/- claimed by the appellant. That on the facts and the circumstances

SHRI ASHISH KOTHARI,DEWAS vs. THE DCIT-1(1), UJJAIN

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

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

delay of 76 days in filing the appeal for A.Y.2015-16 is condoned. 6. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: For A.Y.2015-16 Page 2 of 6 ITANo.395 & 396/Ind/2023 Ashish Kothari “1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of loss of Rs. 16,38,100/- claimed by the appellant. That on the facts and the circumstances

ASHISH KOTHARI,DEWAS vs. THE DCIT-1(1), UJJAIN

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

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

delay of 76 days in filing the appeal for A.Y.2015-16 is condoned. 6. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: For A.Y.2015-16 Page 2 of 6 ITANo.395 & 396/Ind/2023 Ashish Kothari “1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of loss of Rs. 16,38,100/- claimed by the appellant. That on the facts and the circumstances

MAHESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ADDL JCIT (A) -1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeal is allowed

condonation of delay is not required. The appellant has\nstated that the intimation order was received online on 04.04.2023. On\ncareful perusal of the intimation order u/s 143(1) dated 04.12.2010, it is\nseen that the address as mentioned on the intimation order is as under:-\nMahesh Chand Khandelwal\nFlat no. 202, Tulsi Avenue, 130, Vidhya nagar,\nIndore

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, 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

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

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

In the result, the “Impugned

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshideputy Commissioner Of Maral Overseas Ltd. बनाम/ Income Tax- 4(1) Maral Srovar, V & Po, Vs. Indore Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal (Pan: Aaccm0230B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satyajeet Goyal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026

depreciation for the income tax return. b. In the revised return filed on 16.07.1993, the company though offered the said interest as income from other sources, however, it was claimed by way of a note appended to the return of income that the said income is not taxable and have been rightly deducted from pre-operative expenses c. The assessment

M.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee company is engaged in the Financial Assistance for industrial development and infrastructure. It declared total loss at Rs.1,55,62,351/- in the return filed on 30.09.2015. The case was selected for limited

THE ACIT CIRCLE,RATLAM vs. M/S. MAHALAXMI INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD., RATLAM

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

delay in filing of the cross objections is not condoned. Accordingly, both cross objections No. 2 & 3/Ind/2020 are dismissed. 5. Now we take up revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 for which following grounds are raised: ITANo.955/Ind/2016 for A.Y. 2010-11 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id. CIT is erred

THE ACIT, CIRCLE, RATLAM vs. M/S. MAHALAXMI INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD., RATLAM

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

delay in filing of the cross objections is not condoned. Accordingly, both cross objections No. 2 & 3/Ind/2020 are dismissed. 5. Now we take up revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 for which following grounds are raised: ITANo.955/Ind/2016 for A.Y. 2010-11 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id. CIT is erred

DURLABH SAREES`,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boraddurlabh Sarees Ito, 1(1) 5, Gtb Complex, Tt Nagar, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaffd 0883 K Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2024

depreciation while processing return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act. The assesse challenged the said order u/s 143(1) Page 2 of 6 ITANo.315/Ind/2023 Durlabh Sarees before the CIT(A) but the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the CIT(A) as barred by limitation. 2.1 Ld. AR has submitted that when the assesse has explained