ASHOK KUMAR MOONAT,RATLAM vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-3), INDORE, INDORE

disallowing set-off of losses and deductions. The CIT(A) granted relief on losses and deductions but upheld the AO's view on excess stock.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the excess stock was an integral part of the business income and not an unexplained investment. The provisions of Section 69B were not applicable as the excess stock

SHRI RAJPAL JAIN,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3 (3), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirajpal Jain Ito-3(3) Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Akypj 3794 L Assessee By Shri Girdhar Garg Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

section 80C. 5.Ground05. The levy of interest u/s 234-B & 234-C is arbitrary, illegal and bad-in-law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6.Ground06. That no proper and reasonable opportunity was given to the appellant to prove his case and lead evidence in support of his claim through the video conferencing. 7.Ground07

NARAYAN SINGH NAYAK,JHABUA vs. THE ITO 2, RATLAM

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Narayan Singh Nayak, Ito-2, बनाम/ 1, Ranu Colony, Ratlam Jhabua Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abapn9853D Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh & Shri Parth Jhavar, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 04.09.2023

section 263. This newer order is passed by ITO-2, Ratlam [“Ratlam ITO or AO”] wherein he made certain new additions. Aggrieved by this newer assessment order, the assessee went in first appeal to CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has noted, in Para No. 3 and 3.1 of appeal-order, that the notices of hearing were served upon assessee

RAJESH PRAJAPATI ,UJJAIN vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1) , UJJAIN

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2013-14 Shri Rajesh Prajapati, A.C.I.T., बनाम/ 15, Naliya Bakhal, Circle 2(1), Ujjain Ujjain Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Alnpp5190Q Assessee By Ms.Sonam Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

disallowed interest expenses of Rs. 44,32,883/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of I.T. Act and added to the total income of the assessee. (ii) That the ld. ACIT has withdrawn deduction of Rs. 1,00,000/- u/s 80C, Rs. 4,546/- u/s 80D, Rs. 2,500/- u/s 80G. Page 1 of 12 Shri Rajesh Prajapati, Ujjain, Assessment year

SANJAY SAHU,BHOPAL vs. THE TH4E ITO 2(1), BYHOPAL

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2010-11 Sanjay Sahu, Ito 2(1), H.No.98-A Sector, Bhopal बनाम/ Kasturba Nagar, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Apyps1707D Assessee By Shri Shashank Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

80C of the Act, amounting to Rs.45,271/-. 2. The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 1 year and 63 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by assessee’s affidavit on stamp. Referring to contents of same, Ld. AR narrated