SHRI MUKESH KUMAR JAIN ,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(5), INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain Ito 3(5) बनाम Indore Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) /Vs. Pan: Adhpj 6674 M Assessee By Shri A.G. Shastri, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

rectification-order dated 05.02.2020 passed by the learned CPC, Bangalore [“Ld. AO”] u/s 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the Assessment-Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has filed following grounds of appeal: “1. In the facts & circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A)- NFAC erred in allowing relief of Rs. 21,60,000/- instead

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

rectification of Page 3 of 12 Bhagwat Prasad Malviya A.Y. 2014-15 mistakes apparent from record. In the present case, the following apparent errors were observed by the AO: The assessee claimed exemption of Rs. 1,69,64,508 u/s 54B. However, of this, an amount of Rs. 7,79,754 was for agricultural land purchased before the date

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

house is also eligible for deduction under 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

ANAMIKA GARG ,DEWAS vs. CIT, UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Anamika Garg, Pcit, 117, Tukoganj Marg, Ujjain बनाम/ Nayapura, Vs. Dewas (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aiwpg 3922 D Assessee By Shri Suresh Gupta, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

house property, capital gain and other sources, which was assessed by AO u/s 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 42,17,604/- after making certain disallowance/addition. Subsequently, Ld. PCIT examined the record of assessment-proceeding and viewed that the assessment-order passed by AO is erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest

SHRI PAWAN NAGPAL,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeal of the Assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10 Shri Pawan Nagpal Acit-3(1) A-4, Housing Board Colony Vs. Bhopal Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aawpn3120A Assessment Year 2009-10 Acit-3(1) Smt. Seema Nagpal Bhopal Vs. P/O M/S. Active Motors A-4, Housing Board Colony Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aawpn3119R For Assessees Shri C.P. Rawka, Ca For Department Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2019

154 be held to be high and unreasonable and be suitably reduced. 4. The appellant crave leave to add, amend or alter any ground of appeal before or during the course of appellate proceedings. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s

THE ACIT, 3(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI SEEMA NAGPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, both appeal of the Assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10 Shri Pawan Nagpal Acit-3(1) A-4, Housing Board Colony Vs. Bhopal Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aawpn3120A Assessment Year 2009-10 Acit-3(1) Smt. Seema Nagpal Bhopal Vs. P/O M/S. Active Motors A-4, Housing Board Colony Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aawpn3119R For Assessees Shri C.P. Rawka, Ca For Department Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2019

154 be held to be high and unreasonable and be suitably reduced. 4. The appellant crave leave to add, amend or alter any ground of appeal before or during the course of appellate proceedings. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s

M/S RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIK VISHWAVIDHALYA,HOSANGABAD vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 324 & 325/Ind/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vs. Dcit, Vishwavidyalaya, Cpc, Bhopal Bangaluru

rectification application on 05/04/2017 for AY 2014- 15 before the CPC, which was rejected. Subsequently, the assessee filed appeal against these intimations before ld. CIT(A)-2, Bhopal and requested for stay of demand before the Assessing Officer after depositing 10% of the outstanding demand. The application for stay of outstanding demand was positively and reasonably considered by the Assessing

M/S RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIK VISHWAVIDHALYA,HOSANGABAD vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 324 & 325/Ind/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vs. Dcit, Vishwavidyalaya, Cpc, Bhopal Bangaluru

rectification application on 05/04/2017 for AY 2014- 15 before the CPC, which was rejected. Subsequently, the assessee filed appeal against these intimations before ld. CIT(A)-2, Bhopal and requested for stay of demand before the Assessing Officer after depositing 10% of the outstanding demand. The application for stay of outstanding demand was positively and reasonably considered by the Assessing