INCME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SWARNA SUKH, BHOPAL

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 Revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066827989(1) dated 19.07.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order". The relevant Assessment Year

M/S RAS DEVCON PRIVATE LIMITED ,/, SANVID NAGAR, KANADIA ROAD, INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE, AAYKAR BHAWAN, OPPOSITE WHITE CHURCH ROAD, INDORE

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

section 147 of the Act. 2.3 Accordingly statutory notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 30/03/2021 and duly served to the assessee electronically. Prior to issuance of the said notice, reason for re-opening was recorded and prior approval of the appropriate authority was taken. The assessee filed return of income in response

LAXMI LAND DEVELOPERS P. LTD,.,INDORE vs. ITO-1(3), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshilaxmi Land Developers Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd, 1(3), Vs. 401-Atower, Indore 6/2 South Tukoganj, Indore

section 68. 6. In view of above facts discussed in preceding paras, the claimed loan amount taken during the year of Rs.12017416/- (inclusive of interest) from M/s Jay Jyoti India P. Ltd. and Rs 4709468/- from Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, total Rs 1,67,26,884/- is added to the total income of the assessee u/s 68

SHAILESH KALWADIA (HUF) ,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BPL-C-(91)(1), UJJAIN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT (A) who by the “Impugned Order” has dismissed the first appeal of the Assessee on the Page 2 of 9 SHAILESH KALWADIA (HUF) ITA No. 464/Ind/2025 & 160/Ind/2026 - A.Y.2013-14 grounds & reasons stated therein. The core grounds & reasons for the dismissal of the first appeal were as under:- “Submission of the appellant

SHAILESH KALWADIA (HUF),UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BPL-C(91)(1), BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT (A) who by the “Impugned Order” has dismissed the first appeal of the Assessee on the Page 2 of 9 SHAILESH KALWADIA (HUF) ITA No. 464/Ind/2025 & 160/Ind/2026 - A.Y.2013-14 grounds & reasons stated therein. The core grounds & reasons for the dismissal of the first appeal were as under:- “Submission of the appellant

LATE SHRI RAMANAND TAPARIA TH/LH CHANDADEVI TAPARIA ,INDORE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTREQ, DELHI

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

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 and reasons stated therein. The core grounds and reasons are listed as "A" & "B" as under:- (A). 6. Decision: I have carefully perused/considered the appellate documents, submissions filed, and order passed by Ld.JAO for appellate

LATE SHRI RAMANAND TAPARIA TH/LH CHANDA DEVI TAPARIA,INDORE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

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 and reasons stated therein. The core grounds and reasons are listed as "A" & "B" as under:- (A). 6. Decision: I have carefully perused/considered the appellate documents, submissions filed, and order passed by Ld.JAO for appellate

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

68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 and is added back to the total income. The provisions of Page 20 of 35 DCIT-3(1) V/s Manidhari Jewellers ITA No. 533/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 section 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 are also invoked in this case. Penalty proceeding u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act is separately initiated. 2.13 That

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

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) and who by impugned order at para 3.4 has observed and avered as under:- “3.4 During the course of appellate proceedings, it is seen that while the impugned order sought to be challenged in this appeal was passed on 21.03.2022 and the appeal has been filed only on 08.01.2024 i.e. after 658days

GLOBUS HOUSING,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 68 applies equally to money received by the assessee shown as sale of shares and the burden is on the assessee to prove the nature and source thereof to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer regarding the three ingredients ie. proof regarding identity of the purchaser, the creditworthiness to purchase the shares and the genuineness of the transaction

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

In the result, the grounds raised on this issue stands "Dismissed"

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshikhojema Bohra

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the total income of the assessee during the relevant year under consideration and taxed by invoking the section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at the rate of 30%. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of (Addition Rs.23,00,000/-income.” 2.2 That

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

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the total income of the assessee during the relevant year under consideration and taxed by invoking the section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at the rate of 30%. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of (Addition Rs.23,00,000/-income.” 2.2 That

MEHI POWER TRANSFORMERS ,INDORE vs. DCIT-4(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimehi Power Transformers, Dcit-4(1), बनाम/ 74-J Industrial Estate, Indore Vs. Polo Ground, Indore (Pan: Aacfm0235H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sudhir Padliya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2025

246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the grounds and reasons stated therein. The core ground being that the assessee has not filed any documents in support. It is also recorded in the “impugned order” that 3 opportunities were afforded to the assessee to substantiate

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

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

246A of the act before the Learned CIT(A) who by the impugned order has dismissed the first appeal of the assessee on the grounds and reasons stated therein. The core grounds and reasons for the dismissal of the first appeal were as under:- Sudha Luhadia ITANo.546/Ind/2025 Sudha Luhadia ITANo.546/Ind/2025 Sudha Luhadia ITANo.546/Ind/2025 Sudha Luhadia ITANo.546/Ind/2025 Sudha Luhadia ITANo.546/Ind/2025 Sudha

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

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

68 required as per Rule 129 in accordance of the provisions of section 270AA of the Act for immunity from penalty proceedings u/s 270A, hence order u/s 270AA(4) cannot be passed in the case of the assessee and immunity from imposition of penalty cannot be granted to the assessee. The case laws quoted by the assessee have been

BRIJ MOHAN JOSHI,SENDHWA vs. WARD SENDHWA, SENDHWA

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

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshibrij Mohan Joshi, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 3, Behind Of Goi Wala Ward Sendhwa Vs. Building, Ram Katora Mohalla, Sendhwa

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/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1073825025(1) dated 28.02.2025 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