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

house within the period stipulated in Section 54F(1), if the assessee wants the benefit of Section 54F, then he should deposit the said capital gains in an account which is Page 11 of 14 Goverdhan Lal Yadav ITA No. 854/Ind/2024- AY: 2015-16 duly notified by the Central Government. In other words if he want of claim exemption from

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

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 restricting the addition for cash loan advanced made at Rs. 3,00,45,585/-, addition that was made

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 restricting the addition for cash loan advanced made at Rs. 3,00,45,585/-, addition that was made

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

house. From November 2022 onwards, the appellant\nwas compelled to litigate before the Hon'ble DRT, including filing appeal, intervention\nproceedings through his aged mother, and subsequent submissions, all aimed at\npreventing auction of the property. The appellant remained continuously engaged\nmedical reasons and in such urgent litigation, which constitutes a bona fide and sufficient\ncause for the delay

SANDEEP KUMAR MUNDRA ,BURHANPUR vs. ITO, BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisandeep Kumar Mundra, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ S.K. Enterprises, Burhanpur Vs. Kalabagh Emagrid, Burhanpur (Pan:Abtpm8551C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Manoj Phadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1071815572(1) dated 02.01.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

house. From November 2022 onwards, the appellant\nwas compelled to litigate before the Hon'ble DRT, including filing appeal, intervention\nproceedings through his aged mother, and subsequent submissions, all aimed at\npreventing auction of the property. The appellant remained continuously engaged\nmedical reasons and in such urgent litigation, which constitutes a bona fide and sufficient\ncause for the delay

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

house. From November 2022 onwards, the appellant\nwas compelled to litigate before the Hon'ble DRT, including filing appeal, intervention\nproceedings through his aged mother, and subsequent submissions, all aimed at\npreventing auction of the property. The appellant remained continuously engaged\nmedical reasons and in such urgent litigation, which constitutes a bona fide and sufficient\ncause for the delay

SUDHA LUHADIA,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE ITO - 4(5), INDORE, INDORE, M.P.

In the result, the impugned order is upheld

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisudha Luhadia, Indore The Ito-4(5), बनाम/ C/O S.V. Agrawal & Indore Vs. Associates, 25, Joy Builders Colony, Near Rafael Tower, Old Palasia, Indore (Mp) (Pan: Abapl5445M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

250 of the act which is impugned order. hereinafter referred to as the The Relevant assessment year is 2017-18 and the corresponding previous year period is from 1.4. 2016 to 31.3.2017. 2. Factual Matrix 2.1 That as and by way of an assessment order made under section 143(3) of the act, the total income of the assessee

SHRI KHALID AMAN,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Khalid Aman, Pr. Cit-2 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aarpa 4443 L Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2023

250/- and plot at Arwalia for Rs. 5,99,500/- for less than circle rates, which attracted section 43CAyet the Ld. AO has not made enquiries: Ld. AR carried us to Paper-Book-I / Page No. 20 to 21 where a copy of the reasons recorded by Ld. AO for re-opening of assessment is placed. The said document

BADAM SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO 4(1) , BHOPAL

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

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshibadam Singh, Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ 392 Gram Palasi, 4(1), Vs. New Jail Road, Bhopal Karond, Bhopal (Pan: Drhps5664B) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

250 are bad in law as well as on facts and are liable to be annulled. Ground 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant did not get the opportunity of being heard and hence the order is against the natural justice of law. The Learned CIT Appeals upheld the ex parte order passed

M/S BANSAL EXTRACTION & EXPORT P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Bansal Extraction & Dcit Export Pvt. Ltd. Central-1 3Rd Floor Tawa Complex, Bittan Bhopal Vs. Market E-4, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aadcb 7521 M Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2023

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from "other sources" because the provisions of Sections 69, 694, 69B and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been

MOHAMMAD ZAHOOR QURESHI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-4(2), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Paresh M Joshi & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2014-15 Mohammad Zahoor Ito 4(2), Qureshi, Bhopal House No.956, Bagh Farhat Afza Gate Ke Andar, बनाम/ Gali No.2, Vs. Near Rajesh Cycle Aishbagh Stadium, Bhopal

House No.956, Bagh Farhat Afza Gate Ke Andar, बनाम/ Gali No.2, Vs. Near Rajesh Cycle Aishbagh Stadium, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AACPQ2965Q Assessee by Shri Rakesh Choudhary, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 17.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.: This is an appeal filed

DCIT,CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL vs. M/S SIGNATURE BUILDERS AND COLONISER, BHOPAL

In the result, both the departmental appeals i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Abxfs 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Accfs 9498 Q … Respondent

property was on basis of facts. Ashwani Kumar V. ITO (1991) 39 ITD 183 (Del) and Daya Chand V. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 327 (Del) and S.P. Goel V. DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mum.) : Nine out of 19 slips found were without any name or amount and therefore were dumb documents and no adverse inference could be drawn. Common

DCIT-CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL vs. M/S SINGNATURE COLONISERS, BHOPAL

In the result, both the departmental appeals i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Abxfs 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Accfs 9498 Q … Respondent

property was on basis of facts. Ashwani Kumar V. ITO (1991) 39 ITD 183 (Del) and Daya Chand V. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 327 (Del) and S.P. Goel V. DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mum.) : Nine out of 19 slips found were without any name or amount and therefore were dumb documents and no adverse inference could be drawn. Common

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 253 of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act\" for\nsake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by\nthe order bearing\nNumber\nITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/\n1065838986(1) dated 19.06.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250\nof the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the \"Impugned\nPage 1 of 22\norder\". The relevant

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/ 1065838986(1) dated 19.06.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Page 1 of 22 Manoj Kumar Gangadharan

SANATAN WAREHOUSE,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2022-23 Sanatan Warehouse, Cit(A) 162, Modi Heights, Bhopal बनाम/ Zone-Ii, Mp Nagar, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aegfs0245D Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.07.2025

250 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2022-23, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds: “1. The order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer/CPC & CIT (Appeal) is bad in law, arbitrary and is not enforceable under the law. 2. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in treating the return