NILESH PORWAL,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.\n3. On merit of case, Ld. AR submitted that the AO has disallowed

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we\ntake a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with\nhearing.\n4.\nLd. AR for assessee submits that the section 250(6) of the Income-tax\nAct, 1961 provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the\nappeal shall be in writing and shall state the points

NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM KARMCHARI KALYAN SAKH SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,UJJAIN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2019-20 Nagar Palika Nigam Cpc, Bangaluru / Karmchari Kalyan Sakh Cit, Nfac, Delhi Sahakari Sanstha बनाम/ Maryadit, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aactn7778G Assessee By Ms. Sonam Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2024

253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. Page 3 of 9 Nagar Palika Nigam Karmchari Kalyan Sakh Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Ujjain ITA No. 198/Ind/2024 – AY 2019-20 3. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee is a society

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

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

disallow the appellant's claim for\nthe benefit of Section 115BBA when processing the return under\nSection 143(1) of the Act on 24.08.2022.\n6.4 In this connection, the provisions u/s 115BAA of the Act are\nrelevant and extracted as under:-\nCIRCULAR NO. 6/2022 [F. NO. 173/32/2022/ITA-1], DATED\n17-3-2022\n\"Section 115BAA of the Income

ACIT, BHOPAL vs. M.P.STATE CO-OP. HOUSING FEDERATION LTD., BHOPAL

253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit this\nappeal and proceed with hearing.\n3. The revenue/appellant has raised following solitary ground:\n“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-I,\nBhopal, erred in deleting the addition

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

NARENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

253(5) and the decision of\nHon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit\nappeal and proceed with hearing.\n4. The background facts leading to present appeal are as under:\n(i)\nThe assessee-individual is a differently-abled person. Originally, he\nwas a permanent employee of Central Govt. in the Department of\nTelecom

ADIM JATI SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI MYDT JOBAT,ALIRAJPUR vs. FACELESS ASSESSMENT OFFICER, ALIRAJPUR

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti National Faceless बनाम/ Mydt., Assessment Centre Vs. 01, Jobat, Jobat, Delhi Alirajpur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaala0577E Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in business of providing credit facilities to its members. For AY 2020-21, the assessee filed return declaring total income of Rs. 40/-. In the return

MUDIT KUMAR BAJAJ,UJJAIN vs. ITO-1(2), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed”

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aezpb2621P Assessee By Ms. Nupur Ladha & Shri Vaibhav Siroliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2024 O R D E R

253 (AP), and Akash Films v. CIT [1991] 190 ITR 32 (Kar.). The decisions of the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Allahabad, Kerala, Karnataka, Punjab & Haryana, Rajasthan and Patna are to the effect that the payments made for purchasing stock-in-trade or raw materials should also be regarded as expenditure for the purpose of section

SHREE SHANTANU VIDHYAPEETH SOCIETY ,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal\nafter expiry of prescribed time, subject of course that the ITAT is satisfied\nthat there was “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed\ntime.\n\n15.\nFurther, in the landmark decision of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs\nMst. Katiji and others

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

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. The background facts leading to this appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed return of AY 2015-16 declaring a total income of Rs. Page 3 of 14 Goverdhan Lal Yadav ITA No. 854/Ind/2024-

INCOME TAX OFFICER INDORE 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a\njudicious view, condone delay, admit these appeals and proceed with\nhearing.\n3. The background facts leading to present appeals are such that the\nassessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate. For AY\n2017-18 & 2018-19, the assessee filed its returns/revised returns

RAJESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,DEWAS vs. ITO DEWAS, DEWAS

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2015-16 Rajesh Kumar Agrawal, Ito 105, Agra Mumbai Road, Dewas बनाम/ Dewas Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abopa3336J Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed his return of AY 2015-16 declaring a total income of Rs. 10,60,670/- which was assessed by AO through

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

In the result appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-4(1), Indore Maral Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Maral Sarovar, V& Po Vs. Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal as & by way of a second Appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-1046/2021-22 dated 29.07.2022[DR No. 39/12 D No. 427] passed

SHRI VISHWAMITRA SHIKSHAN SAMITI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2020-21 Shri Vishwamitra Income-Tax Officer, Shikshan Samiti, 5(1), 104, J. B. Complex, Indore. बनाम/ Race Course Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aajts1473J Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2024

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. Although the assessee has raised several grievances of general nature in grounds regarding illegalities in the assessment made by AO, during the course of hearing the Ld. AR for assessee did not make submissions

NIDHI JAIN,BHOPAL vs. ITO 3(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year:2015-16

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed her return of income of AY 2015-16 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,27,600/-. The case was selected

DILIP KUMAR JAIN,MANDIDEEP vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAISEN, RAISEN

Appeals are allowed for statistical

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

disallowances and determining total income at Rs. 18,65,920/-. Simultaneously, the AO also intiated proceeding for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) vide notice dated 29.02.2016 and ultimately imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,12,630/- (+) cess on penalty of Rs. 3,380/- vide penalty-order dated 24.08.2016. Aggrieved by both orders i.e. the assessment-order dated

DILIP KUMAR JAIN,MANDIDEEP vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAISEN

Appeals are allowed for statistical

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

disallowances and determining total income at Rs. 18,65,920/-. Simultaneously, the AO also intiated proceeding for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) vide notice dated 29.02.2016 and ultimately imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,12,630/- (+) cess on penalty of Rs. 3,380/- vide penalty-order dated 24.08.2016. Aggrieved by both orders i.e. the assessment-order dated