RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

246A or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty

MORNI SAREES PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed”

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

disallowed was allowed] (Page 16 of paper book) . 2.11 It is also required to be noted and appreciated that on 27.08.2022 [which is a date prior to order u/s 154 dated 24.02.2023 (supra)], the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned intimation order” had also filed “first appeal” in terms of Section 246A

INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. AGROH TOLL HIGHWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiincome Tax Agroh Toll Highways Private बनाम/ Officer-1(1), Limited Vs. Indore Floor No.104, Krishna Harmony, 14/2 New Palasia, Indore, Indore (Pan:Aalca2341L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.03.2026 Date Of 27.03.2026 Pronouncement आदेश/ O R D E R

disallowed the deduction under section 80 IA merely on the ground that Page 2 of 12 AGROH TOLL HIGHWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED ITA No. 344/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2021-22 the audit report was furnished after due date of filing the return of Income by the assessee. Addition of Rs. 10,49,29,280/- was thus made. 2.3 That the Assessee being aggrieved

BANSAL PATHWAYS DAMOH KATNI P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOOPAL

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshibansal Pathways Damoh Dcit-1(1), बनाम Katni Private Limited, Bhopal / 15Th Floor Bansal One, Vs. Rani Kamlapati Railway Station, Bhopal

section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act. 10. The amount being disallowed is 12.20% of Rs.13,63,07,111/- = Rs.1,66,29,946/-”. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

disallowances. Thus, ground nos. 1 to 5 are allowed. 10. Apropos ground No.6, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated this ground, therefore, we deem it proper that the issue be restored to the AO to verify the claim of the assessee in respect of credit of TDS. In case

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

disallowances. Thus, ground nos. 1 to 5 are allowed. 10. Apropos ground No.6, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated this ground, therefore, we deem it proper that the issue be restored to the AO to verify the claim of the assessee in respect of credit of TDS. In case

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

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

246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the "impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the grounds and reasons stated therein. 2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order" has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal in Form No.36 against the "impugned

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

MORNI SAREES PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

disallowed. [Total income computed at Rs.36,26,100/- instead of earlier computed at Rs.43,45,100/-]. 2.11 It is also required to be noted and appreciated that on 16.06.2022 [which date is prior to order u/s 154 dated 24.02.2023 (supra)], the assessee being aggrieved by the "impugned intimation” had also filed “first appeal” in terms of Section 246A

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

Disallowance of Depreciation 6,89,037/- Assessed Income 21,74,733/- 2.8 That in view of the aforesaid income of the assessee for the year under consideration is assessed at Rs.21,74,733/- U/s 144 r.w.s. 142(1) of the Act. 2.9 That the aforesaid order of Ld. A.O bears No.ITBA/AST/S/144/2019-70/1023240276(1) and is dated 27.12.2019 which is hereinafter referred

NAVNEET KUMAR SANCHETI,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), DELHI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2013-14 Navneet Kumar Sancheti Nfac Prop. M/S Navnet Kumar Delhi बनाम/ Sancheti, Krishi Upaj Vs. Mandi Ashta (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Acnps5570J Assessee By Shri Govind Rinwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.01.2025

disallowance of Rs. 4.24 crores. In absence of any response or representation to the various notices issued from the office of the first appellate authority, on five different dates of hearing , as evident from the appellate order , the appeal has been dismissed by the Ld CIT ( A ) , without adjudication on the grounds of appeal on merits . 5. Now the assessee

BHAGWAT PRASAD MALVIYA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2014-15 Bhagwat Prasad Malviya Ito -3(1) 28, Crp Phatak Road Bhopal बनाम/ Bairagarh, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afbpm8998M Assessee By Shri N.D. Patwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.12.2025

246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “Impugned Order” has dismissed the first appeal of the assessee on the grounds and reasons stated therein. The core grounds and reasons are stated as under: “8.0 In view of the discussion as above and facts of the case, it seems that the appellant has nothing

SHIVA COTTON INDUSTRIES,SENDHWA vs. ITO , SENDHWA

In the result, the appeal stands fully allowed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2016-17

section 40A(3) of the Act aggregating to Rs.4,01,62,262/-. 2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “Impugned assessment Order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “Impugned Order” has partly allowed the first appeal of the assessee on the grounds & reasons stated therein. The core

DEEYA AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BURHANPUR vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshideeya Agrotech Private Ito Burhanpur बनाम/ Limited, Vs. 203, Bahadarpur Road, Burhanpur 450331, Madhya Pradesh, Indore (Pan:Aadcd9603J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pankaj Mogra, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

section 253 of the income tax Act 1962,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal as and by way of a second appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1074999215(1) dated 25/03/2025 passed by the Ld. CIT (A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein after referred

SHRI KAMLESH SEN,BHOPAL vs. THE CIT (A) NFAC , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Kamlesh Sen Nfac 55, Saluja Complex Delhi Vs. M.P. Nagar-1 Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Bejps 5672C Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05.09.2023

246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 but the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has not considered the same and thus not commented on the said matter. A.O. has disallowed the expenses by invoking the provisions of Section

SANJANA CLOTHINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. AID, CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the 1st appeal of the assessee on the grounds and reasons stated therein. The core grounds and reasons for the dismissal of the first appeal of the assessee was as under:- "6. Observations, Findings and Decisions I have carefully considered the facts

SHIVGANGA DRILLERS P LTD,INDORE vs. CPC , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 199 of the Income Tax Act since the corresponding income was duly offered for tax in the assessment year 2017-18 itself. c) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. AO (CPC) erred in charging interest u/s 234B and 234C

RAJVEER LEAF SPRINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,PALDA. INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT- 4(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshirajveer Leaf Springs Dcit/Acit-4(1), बनाम/ Private Limited, Indore Vs. D-405, Shubh City, Palda, Indore

246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the 1st appeal of the assessee on the grounds and reasons stated therein. The core grounds and reasons are as under:- “5.3 In Grounds 2 to 4, the assessee argues that the addition of Rs. 4,62,63,870 under Section