MAHENDRA KUMAR VERMA,INDORE vs. ITO-4(1), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 482/Ind/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) बनाम/ Mahendra Kumar Verma Ito-4(1) Flat No.301, Classic Indore Vs. Dream, 5-6, Paliwal Nagar, Indore (M.P.) -452011 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acspv2701P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri S. N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mongra, A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr 17/04/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14. ITA No. 482/Ind/2024 [Mahendra Kumar Verma vs. ITO] A.Y. 2013-14 - 2 – 2. The grounds raised in the appeal by the assessee are as under: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SANJEEV AGRAWAL ,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

250,\nSagar Plaza, Zone II, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal on 28.11.2016. At the time of survey\nPage 5 of 33\nSanjeev Agrawal\nITA No. 38/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18\nproceedings a hand written document was found from the iphone of the\nassessee. During verification, it was found that Shri Sanjeev Agrawal has\nmade unaccounted investment in purchase of 11 acres of land

ADIM JATI SEVA SAHAKARI S ANSTHA BELKUND,BELKUND, BETUL vs. ITO, BETUL, BETUL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

reassessment proceedings under section 147. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-prosecution.", "held": "The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the merits, contrary to Section 250

KUSUM GEORGE JACOB,BHOPAL vs. ITO - 2(1) BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, HOSHANGABAD

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

250 of\nthe Act before the First Appellate Authority and, in Form No. 35, had\nspecifically opted for non-service of communications and notices through\ne-mail mode. Copy of FORM 35 is attached as Annexure (A/1).\n5. That, notwithstanding the said specific selection in Form No. 35, all\ncommunications and notices during the appellate proceedings were issued\nelectronically

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

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act 2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in reopening the case of the appellant merely on the basis of non-existent/factually incorrect reasons 3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ONEEL VERMA,NASHIK vs. ITO-5(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings by issuing of notice under section 148 and passing the Assessment Order under section 144 without any valid jurisdiction. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in completing assessment without serving mandatory notice under

RUPESH JAISWAL,DHARAMPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

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

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshirupesh Jaiswal, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 111, Azad Marg, Indore Vs. Dist. Dhar, Tehsil Dharampuri, Dharampuri (Pan: Akopj7192C) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka & Ms. Eva Rawka, Ars Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025 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- 25/1066805901(1) dated 18.07.2024 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE vs. SEWA SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT TILLOR KHURAD, INDORE

reassessment\nproceedings by the concerned AO.\n9. In Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra) the Supreme Court was dealing with\nthe issue as to whether the penalty proceedings under section 271D are\nindependent of the assessment proceedings. In that case, in the\nassessment order passed in pursuance to the remand no satisfaction\nwas recorded for initiating the proceedings under section 271E

OM PRAKASH RATHI,RAJGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT 2 (1), UJJAIN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

section 250(6). Therefore,\nthe impugned first appeal-order passed by Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set\nOm Prakash Rathi\nITA No. 457/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13\naside and the matter is fit for restoring to him for a proper adjudication. In\nso far as the reason of non-prosecution by assessee is concerned, Ld. AR\ncarried us to Para

ATUL BANSAL,INDORE vs. ADDITIONA, JOIN, DEPUTY, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX OFFICER NFAC DELHI, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

250(6). Therefore,\nthe impugned first appeal-order passed by Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set\naside.\n4. Having explained thus, Ld. AR went ahead to make submissions qua\nthe sources of deposits available to assessee. In so far as the first source of\nbusiness turnover/receipts having been deposited is concerned, Ld. AR drew\nus to Page

AROLEEN SOFTECH AND ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiaroleen Softech & Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Engineering Private 1(1), Vs. Limited, Indore 270 Shastri Market, Indore (Pan: Aajca4128P) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025 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- 25/1070645536(1) dated 26.11.2024 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

JASTEJ GOROWARA,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment, the CIT(Appeals) concurred with the Assessing Officer and held that the ITA Nos. 276&277/Ind/2025 Jastej Gorowara vs. CIT(A) A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2015-16 reopening was validly initiated after recording reasons and obtaining due approval, and that the assessee had failed to substantiate any infirmity in the reopening proceedings. On the substantive ground relating to addition

JASTEJ GOROWARA,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment, the CIT(Appeals) concurred with the Assessing Officer and held that the ITA Nos. 276&277/Ind/2025 Jastej Gorowara vs. CIT(A) A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2015-16 reopening was validly initiated after recording reasons and obtaining due approval, and that the assessee had failed to substantiate any infirmity in the reopening proceedings. On the substantive ground relating to addition

SUNIL KUMAR MOOLCHANDANI,BHOPAL vs. ITO,1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.To substantiate the\naforesaid facts, a copy of the doctor's prescription is annexed herewith\nand marked as Annexure A. Consequently, the Appellant could not\nperuse or respond to the said order in a timely manner and was only\nable to review the contents of the same on 7th May, 2025.\n3) That

BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment proceedings, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued calling upon the assessee to furnish details of purchases, supporting bills, bank statements and evidence regarding the transactions with Shri Sunil Kumar Lalwani. However, the assessee did not comply with these notices and did not furnish any documentary evidence in support of the alleged purchases

BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment proceedings, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued calling upon the assessee to furnish details of purchases, supporting bills, bank statements and evidence regarding the transactions with Shri Sunil Kumar Lalwani. However, the assessee did not comply with these notices and did not furnish any documentary evidence in support of the alleged purchases

BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment proceedings, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued calling upon the assessee to furnish details of purchases, supporting bills, bank statements and evidence regarding the transactions with Shri Sunil Kumar Lalwani. However, the assessee did not comply with these notices and did not furnish any documentary evidence in support of the alleged purchases

MANISH KUMAR AGRAWAL,NEEMUCH vs. NFAC,DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

sections": [ "147", "144B", "68", "148", "250(6)" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the assessee's grounds and submissions, particularly concerning the legality of the reassessment