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

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

M/S PLATINUM HORAZINE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

253, subsection (3) of section 249 of the Income Tax Act 1961 used in identical terms in the Limitation Act and the CPC. Such expression has also been used under section 4 of the Income Tax Act 1961 such as sections 273, 274 etc. The expression “’sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of Limitation

ULTIMATE CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2010-11 Ultimate Construction, Dcit-1(1), G-1, Kamdenu Tower, Bhopal बनाम/ E-2/21, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aabfu9241J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, C.A. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.02.2024

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. Page 3 of 14 Ultimate Construction, Bhopal vs. Dy. CIT,1(1), Bhopal, ITA No. 379/Ind/2023 – AY 2010-11 3. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-firm is engaged

SHRI DEEPAK SONI, BHYOPAL vs. THE ITO 4 (3), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhashri Deepak Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Acyps8020J) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Kumar Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambey Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Avgps0484F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

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 brief facts leading to this appeal are such that the assessee- individual is engaged in jewellery business the name of M/s Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal. For AY 2017-18 under consideration, the assessee filed return declaring

SANDEEP KUMAR SONI,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 4(3), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhashri Deepak Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Acyps8020J) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Kumar Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambey Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Avgps0484F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

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 brief facts leading to this appeal are such that the assessee- individual is engaged in jewellery business the name of M/s Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal. For AY 2017-18 under consideration, the assessee filed return declaring

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

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

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 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

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. MARAL OVERSEAS LTD, KHARGONE

In the result appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-4(1), Indore Maral Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Maral Sarovar, V& Po Vs. Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal

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 a second Appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-1046/2021-22 dated 29.07.2022[DR No. 39/12 D No. 427] passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which

PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 5. Briefly stated, the background facts leading to present appeals are such that the AO, on the basis of AIR information revealing that the assessee had made cash-deposits in bank a/c, issued notice

PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 5. Briefly stated, the background facts leading to present appeals are such that the AO, on the basis of AIR information revealing that the assessee had made cash-deposits in bank a/c, issued notice

PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO-WARD-3(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 5. Briefly stated, the background facts leading to present appeals are such that the AO, on the basis of AIR information revealing that the assessee had made cash-deposits in bank a/c, issued notice

SANJAY SAHU,BHOPAL vs. THE TH4E ITO 2(1), BYHOPAL

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2010-11 Sanjay Sahu, Ito 2(1), H.No.98-A Sector, Bhopal बनाम/ Kasturba Nagar, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Apyps1707D Assessee By Shri Shashank Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposit in his Savings bank account and therefore it is unjust, illogical and arbitrary and deserves to be quashed. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing officer

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri B.M. Biyaniito-5(1) Indore

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit these appeals and proceed with hearing. 3. The background facts leading to present appeals are such that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate. For AY 2017-18 & 2018-19, the assessee filed

FOREST GUARDIAN CHARITABLE TRUST,SATNA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2023-24 Forest Guardian Commissioner Of Income- Charitable Trust, Tax (Exemption), Ward No. 01, Bhopal Haryana Dall Mill बनाम/ Compound, Vs. Kamta Tola, Satna (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaatf9057G Assessee By Shri Regan Kapoor, Ca Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2025

68 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee/appellant submitted that the assessee is a charitable trust and Shri Vinay Goel, the office bearer/authorized representative of assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit on stamp. On perusal of the application/affidavit, we observe that the averments therein state that after receiving impugned order

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

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 RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

5 Enit Investment P. Ltd. It is further observed from records that the letter issued by speed post to Jayant Security & Finance Ltd. was received back unserved with the remark not know/left however, subsequently somebody filed the information/confirmation on behalf of Jayant Security & Finance Ltd. with the letter 1st April 2013 whereas the notice calling for information was issued