INCOME TAX OFFICER INDORE 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

sections": [ "143(3)", "68", "142(1)", "139", "253(5)", "46A", "271AAC", "115BBE", "133(6)", "37", "40(b)" ], "issues": "Whether

INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

sections": [ "143(3)", "68", "144B", "46A", "139", "142(1)", "143(2)", "253(5)", "271AAC", "115BBE", "133(6)" ], "issues": "Whether

ACIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. SANJAY LADDHA, INDORE

253(4)" ], "issues": "Whether the addition made by the AO for unexplained cash deposits is sustainable when the assessee provided supporting documents and maintained audited books, and if rejecting books under Section 145(3) bars addition under Section 68

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

253 may appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has power to pass such orders on such an appeal as it thinks fit. Sub section (4) of section 254 attaches finality to, the orders of the Tribunal subject to the provisions of section 256 ( or section 260A). Needless to say the orders passed by the Tribunal

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

Appeals are allowed

68. Consequently, the addition made in the Impugned Assessment Order and upheld by the CIT(A) was deleted.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "253

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

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and \"impugned order” is upheld

sections": [ "253", "143(2)", "142(1)", "133(6)", "68", "143(3)", "288A", "246A", "269ST", "115BBE" ], "issues": "Whether the addition

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed\nPronounced in open court on 19

68 of the Income Tax Act was not sustainable.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "147 of the Income

RADHESHYAM AGARWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

253 of\nthe income tax Act 1961[herein after referred to as the Act\nfor the sake of brevity] before this tribunal. The Assessee is\naggrieved\nby the order bearing\nNumber:-ITBA\n/REV/F/REV5/2024-25/1074524226(1) dated 15.03.2025\npassed by the Ld. PCIT(Central), Bhopal, u/s 263 of the Act\nwhich is herein after referred to as the \"Impugned order\".\nThe Relevant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL vs. SH. PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA, BHOPAL

In the result the “impugned order” is sustained on the first

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit, Prakash Chandra, बनाम/ Bhopal 16/244, Kings Vs. Shopping Centre, Mp Nagar, Zone-I, Bhopal-462011 Madhya Pradesh (Pan:Aappg5194E)

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal as & by way of an Appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060659730(1) dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein after referred

GULABSINGH RAGHUWANSHI HUF,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE 2(5) , INDORE

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

sections": [ "253", "143(2)", "142(1)", "69A", "115BBE", "246A", "68", "139A", "234A", "234B", "234C" ], "issues": "Whether the assessee has adequately

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 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/ 1069257902(1) dated 30.09.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Page 1 of 12 Laxmi Land

NILESH JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2011-12 Nilesh Jain, Ito 1(1) 1, Gandhi Chowk, Indore बनाम/ Chandrawati Ganj Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ajxpj3919M Assessee By Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

section 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 present appeal are as under: (i) The assessee-individual is a small trader engaged in the business of oil cake (khali) at a small town ‘Chandrawati Ganj

SHREENATH BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,INDORE vs. ITO -1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

sections": [ "143(3)", "68", "115BBE", "253(5)" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal is justifiable and whether

PRAVEEN AGRAWAL ,INDORE vs. DCIT 4(1) INDORE, INDORE

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

sections": [ "253", "250", "143(3)", "144B", "246A", "68", "57", "115BBE", "133(6)", "144" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) order

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

sections": [ "144", "147", "153(6)", "68", "68(1)", "148", "143(2)", "143(3)", "234A(3)", "13", "11", "253", "254", "80-1", "292BB

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

sections": [ "253", "1961", "147", "148", "143(2)", "142(1)", "271(1)(c)", "69", "246A", "69D", "68", "69A", "69B", "69C" ], "issues

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

253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for sake of brevity] before this tribunal, as & by way of a second appeal .The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing No:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1075250428(1) dated 29.03.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein after referred

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

253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for sake of brevity] before this tribunal, as & by way of a second appeal .The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing No:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1075250428(1) dated 29.03.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein after referred