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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

section 253(5) and the\ndecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay,\nadmit appeal and proceed with hearing.\n5. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the\nassessee “Late Shri George Jacob” was an employee of “Bharat Heavy\nElectricals Limited, Bhopal”. For AY 2012-13, the assessee did not file

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, 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

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

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

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

reassessment under sub-section (3) of section 143, has been\npaid within the period specified in such notice of demand; and no\nappeal against the outer referred to in clause (a) hits sir the\nassessee is a normal salaried assessee and deriving the salary\nfrom the rendering his services for merchant navy. Most of the\ntime the assessee used

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

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

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

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1057185611(1) dated 18.10.2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The Page 1 of 17 Ramesh Kumar Sahu, L/H of Late

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

SANYA DHANANI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(4), INDORE

In the result the \"Impugned order” is upheld as the same\nhas set aside the “impugned assessment order” and has\nremanded the matter back to the file of Ld

sections": ["253", "147", "144", "144B", "148", "56(2)(vii)(C)", "246A", "251", "11"], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings were bad in law for want

SURESH PATEL,DEWAS vs. CIT(A),NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

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

253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. On merit of the case, Ld. AR made two-fold submissions: (i) Firstly, it is submitted that the CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed assessee’s first-appeal. That, the assessee has not filed any return

SURESH PATEL,DEWAS vs. CIT(A) ,NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

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

253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. On merit of the case, Ld. AR made two-fold submissions: (i) Firstly, it is submitted that the CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed assessee’s first-appeal. That, the assessee has not filed any return

MANOJ KUMAR MOTWANI,BETUL MP vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER , INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NFAC

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2013-14 Manoj Kumar Motwani, Acit, Prop. Neelam Store, Nfac, Lally Chowk, Delhi बनाम/ Kothi Bazar, Vs. Betul (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaupm8830E Assessee By Shri Rakesh Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2024

253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Page 2 of 9 Shri Manoj Kumar Motwani, Betul vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi ITA No. 151/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2013-14 Court, we take a judicious view, condone small delay of 9 days, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. The background facts leading to this appeal are such that

REKHA KHANDELWAL,RAJGARH vs. ITO WARD RAJGARH, RAJGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Rekha Khandelwal, Income-Tax Officer, Ward No.2, Near Chote Ward Rajgarh Hanuman Mandir, बनाम/ Rajgarh Bus Stand Vs. S.O. Rajgarh, (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Eljpk1548B Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The background facts leading to this appeal are such that the AO, on the basis of information available in Annual Information Return (AIR) revealing that the assessee made cash deposit

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

253 of the\nincome tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the\nsake of brevity] before this Tribunal as & by way of second\nappeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing\nNumber:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1075676936(1)\ndated\n17.04.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which\nis herein after referred

AKHILESH KUMAR PATEL,SHAHDOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER DHAR, DHAR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

253(5)\nand the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view,\ncondone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.\n3. The background facts leading to this appeal are such that the AO, on\nreceipt of information that the assessee had made huge cash transactions in\nBank A/c and also received payment of Rs.1,14,502/- from

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

Appeals are allowed

253 of\nthe income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act\nfor the sake of brevity] before this tribunal as & by way of a\nsecond Appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order\nbearing Number:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1068128472(1)\ndated 29.08.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the\nAct, which is herein after referred