RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the honourable CIT(A) was not justified in upholding that the receipt from job work of mixing of rubber at Rs. 34,19,894 was not the business receipts/income and in confirming the same was income from other sources. 3.On the facts and in the circumstances

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the honourable CIT(A) was not justified in upholding that the receipt from job work of mixing of rubber at Rs. 34,19,894 was not the business receipts/income and in confirming the same was income from other sources. 3.On the facts and in the circumstances

RITIKA JAIN,THANE vs. ITO(IT TP), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAVAN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiritika Jain, Cit (Appeals), बना A-504, Laxmi Residency Chs Nfac, म/ Ltd, Delhi Vs. Opposite Datta Mandir Check Naka, Wagle Estate, Thane

246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has held as under:- “I have gone through above reply of appellant. The appellant in his reply has admitted that he did not file return of income for his income was below taxable limit. This explanation is not acceptable as it is not as per computation

HARISH CHANDRA PUROHIT,RATLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1, RATLAM, RATLAM

In the result- the Impugned order is set aside as and by way

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2018-19

246A of the Act before the ld. CIT(A) who by the “Impugned Order” has dismissed the 1st Appeal of the assessee on the grounds & reasons stated therein. The core grounds & reasons for the dismissal of the 1st Appeal are as under:- “5.2 Now in order to adjudicate the matter all the facts of the case, findings

INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(1), BHOPAL, METRO WALK BUILDING vs. RAMESH KUMAR SAHU, LEGAL HEIR OF SMT. RAMPYARI BAI, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiincome Tax Officer 3(1), Ramesh Kumar Sahu बनाम/ Bhopal L/H Of Late Smt. Ram Vs. Pyari Bai, 127 New Market, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Anhps5515N) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025

reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

246A of the Act on\nPage 4 of 22\n06.11.2023 (Form No.35) before Ld. CIT(A) who by the\n\"impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on\nthe grounds and reasons stated therein. The core ground and\nreasons for dismissal of 1st appeal was as under:-\n“There exists no sufficient or good reason for condoning\ninordinate

SURESH JAT,BADNAWAR vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, DHAR, DHAR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisuresh Jat, Ito, बनाम/ C/O S.V. Agrawal & Associate Dhar. Vs. Dadi Dham, 24-25, Joy Building Colony, Old Aplasia, Indore. (Pan: Anopj2666E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri Anup Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by “Impugned Page 8 of 20 Suresh Jat ITA No. 693/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2016-17 Order” has dismissed the first appeal of the assessee on the grounds & reasons stated therein. The core ground & reasons for the dismissed of first appeal are as under:- “5.3. Vide Grounds 4, 5 and 6, the Appellant

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

b) as narrated in preceding paragraphs which Page 3 of 22 Manoj Kumar Gangadharan ITA No. 670&671 /Ind/2024 - A.Ys.2017-18&2018-19 leads to under reported income in consequence of misreporting thereof. 9. From the above discussion, it can be seen that the assessee has under reported income in consequence of misreporting thereof. Hence, the assessee is liable

SANDEEP KUMAR YADAV,BETUL vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHO

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshisandeep Kumar Yadav, Nfac, बना Palsyapalsya, Delhi म/ Palsya, Vs. The. Bhainsdehi, Betul (Pan: Afnpy3295D) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

section 68 of the I.T. Act. The assessee has not filed any documents to prove the genuineness & creditworthiness of the transactions made by him during the financial year 2012-13 relevant to A.Y.2013-14. Thus, I have no alternative but to complete the exparte assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.7 The Ld. A.O in the assessment

RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 5, SEHORE, SEHORE

In the result, the impugned order is set aside as & by way of\nremand back to the file of the Ld

b) of the Income tax\nAct, 1961 for representing the case. However, in response\nthe assessee did not furnish any reply. In view of the\nnoncompliance to the notice issued on the part of the\nassessee, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, relying on\nthe information available with the Department, passed\nOrder under section 148A(d) of the Income

LAKHMICHAND VASWANI,INDORE vs. ITO WARD 1(4), INDORE, INDORE

In the result ITA No:-653/Ind/2025 and “Impugned order”

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

246A of the act before the Ld. CIT (A) who by the “impugned order” had dismissed the first appeal of the assessee on the grounds and reasons specified therein. The core grounds and reasons for the dismissal of the first appeal were as under:- 4. During the course of appellate proceedings, following hearing notices u/s 250 of the Act were

KHOJEMA BOHRA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

Appeals are allowed

B\n12. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that it has gone\non the basis of the documents submitted by the assessee before\nthe AO and has held that in the light of those documents, it can be\n- said that the assessee has established the identity of the parties.\nIt has further been observed that

DCIT-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MANIDHARI JEWELLERS, BHOPAL

The appeal are allowed

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-3(1), Manidhari Jewellers, बनाम/ Bhopal Room No.202, Vs. Metro Walk Bulding, Bitten Market, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Pan: Abafm6546L) (Revenue) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

reassessment proceedings following opportunities were given which are tabulated below:- Type Date Date Response Date Response Remarks Notice/ Notice/ Compliance of the Response (Full/part/ if any communication communication given assessee received adjournment received/ not received Notice u/s 148 30.06.2022 29.05.2022 Not - - - received Notice u/s 04.01.2023 19.01.2023 Not - - - 142(1) of the received Act Notice u/s 25.01.2023 03.02.2023 Received 08.02.2023 Part

LATE VINAYAK PURANIK THROUGH LEGAL HEIR YASH PURANIK,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshilate Vinayak Puranik Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ Through L/H Yash 3(2), Vs. Puranik, Indore 7/4, New Palasia, Indore

246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has partly allowed the 1st appeal on the grounds and reasons stated therein. 2.3 That the assessee Yash Puranik Legal Heir of late Vinayak Puranik being aggrieved by the “impugned order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following grounds

SATISH KUMAR RADHESHYAM CHOUDHARI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

B Apollo Tower, बनाम/ 2 M.G. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: ABMPC4980E Assessee by S/Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 07.04. 2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee before this Tribunal

YOGESH SOOD,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

B. N. Bhattacharjee & Others\n[1979] 10 CTR 354 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal,\nmeans effectively pursuing it. The Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the\ncase of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs CWT [1979] 223 ITR\n480 (MP) dismissed the reference filed at the instance of the\nassessee for default and for not taking necessary steps.\nConsidering