SHRADDHA SAKH SAHKARI SANSTHA,BARWANI vs. THE ITO, SENDHWA, SENDHWA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance made by the CPC while processing the return of income under Section 143(1) in respect of deduction under Section 80P was not sustainable in law, as the CPC did not have the jurisdiction to make such an adjustment prior to the amendment of Finance Act 2021.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "139(1)", "143(1)", "80P", "250

THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE vs. JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 250(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and therefore the directions of the Ld. CIT(A) were incomplete? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by disallowing

JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 250(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and therefore the directions of the Ld. CIT(A) were incomplete? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by disallowing

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 18.04.2024, which has emanated from the order of the Assessing Officer dated 22.03.2016 passed u/s 143(3), ITO, Sehore. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in the memorandum of appeal are as follows: Page 1 of 7 Navneet Kumar Sancheti ITA No. 495/Ind/2024 – AY 2013-14, “1.That the disallowances

RAINA GARG,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Raina Garg, Ito-4(1), Prop. M/S. Garg Trading Bhopal Company, बनाम/ Purana Kabadkhana, Vs. Jumerati, Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aawpg4732F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.02.2024

250/- being payment of VAT on sale of vehicle be held to be unreasonable and unjustified. The disallowance made be deleted. (5) In the alternative and without prejudice to the grounds stated above the additions and disallowances made by the ld. AO and upheld by Ld. CIT(A) be held to be high and unreasonable and be suitably reduced

KAMLESH MOTWANI,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-2(1),BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

section 250(6). Therefore, the impugned first\nappeal-order passed by Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside.\n5.\nLd. AR next submitted that the assessment-order passed by AO is also\nex-parte u/s 144 wherein the AO has made a total addition of Rs.\n2,43,18,080/- [Disallowance

SHRI RAM BABU SINGH,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Ram Babu Singh, Dcit-1(1) C/O Sv Agrawal & Associates, Bhopal Dadi Dham, 24, Joy Builders Colony, Vs. Near Rafael Tower, Old Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aelps9945K Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 & 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23 .07.2024

250 of the Act, my regular counsel asked me to pay the challan for appeal fees immediately and accordingly the present appeal is being filed without any further delay. Page 2 of 14 ITANo.328/Ind/2023 Ram Babu Singh 3. Thus the assessee has explained the cause of delay that notices issued by CIT(A) as well as the impugned order were

RAMRATI SAHU,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

section 250 had already been passed on 27/06/2024 for Assessment Year\n2014-15. This was the first time the appellant became aware of the said order.\nThe delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor due to negligence, but is caused due\nto bona fide reasons arising from the appellant's age, unfamiliarity with, electronic\ncommunication, and the unfortunate

HEMLATA PATEL,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DEWAS

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purpose

section 253 of\nthe income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act\nfor the sake of brevity] before this tribunal as & by way of a\nsecond Appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order\nbearing Number:-ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1073139567 (1)\ndated 11.02.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the\nAct, which is herein after referred

CHARCHIT GARG,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

250 of the Act and upholding the addition of Rs. 4,58,090/- for the reason that the report in form No. 10DA was not filed within the time prescribed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. J-CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee complied with all requisite for claiming

NEW VISION SOFTEOCOM & CONSULTABCY P LTD ,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 3(1) , BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Last Date Of Filing The Income Tax Return U/S 139(1) Of The Act As Required By Section 43B(B) For Allowability Of Deduction On Actual Payment Basis.

250 of the Income tax Act is illegal and bad in law and is prayed to be quashed. 2. That the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in not allowing the deduction u/s 36(l)(va) of Rs. 5,23,920/- being the employees contribution under EPF and Rs, 35,188/- on account

VRAHATAKAR SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT AMLETHA,AMLETHA vs. ITO-1, RATLAM

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

section 250(6).\n4. Ld. AR has also filed a \"Written-Submission\" as well as an\n\"Application for additional evidences”; these are scanned and re-produced\nbelow:\nWritten-Submission:\nPage 2 of 10\nVrahatakar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit\nITA No. 379/Ind/2025 - AY 2017-18\nBEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH,\nINDORE\nITA NO. ITA 379/IND/2025\nASST. YEAR

SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL,VIDISHA vs. ITO, VIDISHA, VIDISHA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2019-20 Subhash Chandra Ito, Agrawal, Vidisha बनाम/ Galla Mandi, Vs. Vidisha (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afrpa8769A Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri Jaideep Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2026

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.--Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; Page 4 of 10 Subhash Chandra Agrawal ITA No. 354/Ind/2025 – AY 2019-20 (vi) addition

OM PRAKASH RATHI,RAJGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT 2 (1), UJJAIN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

disallowance\nadopted by AO is that the assessee utilized borrowed funds for purchasing\nland, flat, plot, etc. for non-business use. Aggrieved, the assessee carried\nmatter in first-appeal whereupon the CIT(A) dismissed assessee's appeal in\nlimine for non-prosecution without adjudicating merit.\n3. Ld. AR for assessee at first submitted that the section 250

THEACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KETI CONSTRUCTION LTD., INDORE

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit(Central)-2 M/S Keti Construction Ltd Indore Vastalya Chamebers, Sapna Sangeeta, 31/6, Sneh Nagar Vs. Main Road, Indore

disallowance. The AR has referred to the para 1.1. and submitted that Ld. CIT(A) vide notice dated 27.01.2021 was asked the AO to confirm the facts having a bearing on the appeal. The AO was also asked to specify whether he would like to present at the time of hearing in view of provision of section 250

PUNYASHILA AUTOMOBILES,HOSHANGABAD vs. ITO2, ITARSI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

sections": [ "40(b)", "143(1)", "154", "250" ], "issues": "Whether disallowance of partner's remuneration due to a reporting mistake in the return

JEHAN NUMA PALACE HOTEL PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT/ACIT,5(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

250 ITR 432:\n“8. By the Board circular, it has been made clear that if the audit report\nspecified under Section 80HHC(4) is not furnished with the return, then the\ndeduction may be disallowed

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 may be invoked which is not the case here at all 4.19 With due respect, it is submitted that the allegation that the appellant has infused its own money in the grab of unsecured loon is without any basis and not correct and merely on the basis of conjecture or surmises. It is also undisputed fact that