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

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

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

u/s 147 of the Act & that the reassessment\nproceedings are now conducted in faceless manner. E-mail\naddress was of shyamsundarmantri@yahoo.in which did not\nbelong to the assessee. It is stated on the “Affidavit” that\ncompliance could not be done due to wrong e-mail on the portal\nand so also representation. Later upon engaging Tax consultant,\nhe was advised

ANISH KUMAR JAISWAL,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DEWAS

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

253 of\nthe Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of\nbrevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by order\nbearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1068026051(1)\ndated 27.08.2024 of Ld. CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Act which\nis hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant\n Assessment Year

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

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

DILIP BUDHADEV,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. THE ITO, SENDHWA, SENDHWA, MADHYA PRADESH

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical\npurpose

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 Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-\n25/1072703018(1) dated 30.01.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)\nu/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the\n“Impugned order\". The relevant Assessment Year

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

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

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

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal as and by way of Second appeal under the Act. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066243407(1) dated 29.06.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal as and by way of Second appeal under the Act. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064039268(1) dated 10.04.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. section 147 the AO disallowed the benefit of section 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assesse on commercial basis. Similar for A.Y.2016-17 & 2017-18 the AO while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee

M/S M.P. MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. section 147 the AO disallowed the benefit of section 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assesse on commercial basis. Similar for A.Y.2016-17 & 2017-18 the AO while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. section 147 the AO disallowed the benefit of section 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assesse on commercial basis. Similar for A.Y.2016-17 & 2017-18 the AO while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. section 147 the AO disallowed the benefit of section 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assesse on commercial basis. Similar for A.Y.2016-17 & 2017-18 the AO while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee

SHANVAJ HUSSIN,KHARGONE vs. ITO, KHARGONE, KHARGONE

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shanvaj Hussain, Income Tax Officer, 5, New Sabji Mandi, Khargone बनाम/ Khargone Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afkph8029P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2025

147 was held to be bad in law. 2.4 That after the aforesaid assessment order the Ld. Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty of Rs.81,900/- u/s 271B of the Act for failure to get accounts audited as is required u/s 44AB of the Act without properly appreciating the facts of the case and submissions made before him. The Gross