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 delay on the ground that “Since divergent views were prevailing regarding retrospective effect of deletion of second proviso to section 43B and the fact that substantial relief had been allowed to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A) on other counts, the company felt it reasonable not to file an appeal agitating the said disallowances

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

M P RAJYA POWERLOOM BUNKAR SAHAKARI SANGH MARYADIT,BURHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BURHANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimp Rajya Powerloom Bunkar Income Tax Officer Sakahari Sangh Maryadit Burhanpur Vs. Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabam5938R Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.07.2024

condonation of delay is decided by the CCsIT/DGsIT. 4. We have considered rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The AO has denied the claim of deduction u/s 80P to the assessee Cooperative Society on the ground that as per the provisions of section 80AC any deduction is admissible under chapter VIA shall not be allowed

SHRI DANDI SEWA ASHRAM,ONKARESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION , BHOPAL

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

disallowing the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act. The AO has in his order has stated that the assessee has filed a belated return on 30.03.2018 for the said assessment year, however, has not fled the audit report in Form 108. Accordingly. the AD rejected the claim off exemption and the addition made by AO, CPC was sustained

M/S HOPE TEXTILES LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

condoning delay in deposit of the said amount. 4. During the relevant assessment the Assessing Officer refused to give credit to the appellant for even the amount of Rs. 20,79,031/- which had been deposited well within time. Consequently, the total gratuity provisions was disallowed

M/S HOPE TEXTILES LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

condoning delay in deposit of the said amount. 4. During the relevant assessment the Assessing Officer refused to give credit to the appellant for even the amount of Rs. 20,79,031/- which had been deposited well within time. Consequently, the total gratuity provisions was disallowed

M/S HOPE TEXTILES LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

condoning delay in deposit of the said amount. 4. During the relevant assessment the Assessing Officer refused to give credit to the appellant for even the amount of Rs. 20,79,031/- which had been deposited well within time. Consequently, the total gratuity provisions was disallowed

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

condonation of delay in filing the appeal as requested to him. ” 2. At the outset, we note that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine being barred by limitation. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee has filed his return of income on 26.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.15

M/S. DIASPARK INFOTECH PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE NFAC ,NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & T.R. Senthil Kumar

condoning the delay. 6. We have gone through the files on records and materials placed before us. The return of income filed by the assessee for the Asstt.Year 2018-19 was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 13.6.2019 by observing that disallowance

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Vaishali Developers & Income-Tax Officer, Builders, 1(2), बनाम/ 240, M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan : Aacfv7638P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Final Hearing 08.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2024

disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80IB(10) of the I.T. Act by the appellant. (6) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the levy of interest u/s 234B is unlawful and hence, be cancelled.” 2. The registry has informed that there is a delay of 2,425 days in filing this appeal, therefore

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

disallowed (House property). That the aforesaid assessment order is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. In the “impugned assessment order” issuance of a penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A(1)/ 270A(9)(a) of the Act was contemplated too. 2.2 That as and by way of an order (penalty) passed u/s 270A of the Act i.e. “Misreporting penalty

BHOPAL SWITCHGEARS (P) LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE D C I T 1(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Bhopal Switchgears P. Ltd. Dcit -1(1) Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaacb 6092 J Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2022

condone the delay and proceed for hearing of appeal. Ground No. 1: 5. The issue involved in Ground No. 1 relates to the disallowance

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

M/S MAHALAXMI INVESTMENT AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,RATLAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RATLAM

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

condoning the delay in filing of appeal even when the appellant inadvertently and in ignorance of law offered sales tax subsidy as its income which was however exempt from tax as it was a capital receipt. 2) That ,on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not deciding the ground

M/S MAHALAXMI INVESTMENT AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,RATLAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RATLAM

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

condoning the delay in filing of appeal even when the appellant inadvertently and in ignorance of law offered sales tax subsidy as its income which was however exempt from tax as it was a capital receipt. 2) That ,on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not deciding the ground

RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 5, SEHORE, SEHORE

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

disallowed under section 69 of the Income tax Act, 1961 as "unexplained investments", to be taxed as per the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income tax Act, 1961." 2.3 That it is also recorded in the “Impugned Assessment Order” that following opportunities were given to the assessee which is tabulated & is reproduced herein : " 1. Details of opportunities given Type

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

GOVERDHAN LAL YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act, at Rs.3,09,64,475/- without considering full facts and reasoning. The addition made is totally wrong and illegal on the facts of the case.” 2. The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 157 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that