THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

assessment, for that assessment year. In the present case, the question of making of a return is not in issue and the only question is with regard to the second portion of the proviso, which relates to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Insofar as this pre-condition

SMT. SHARDA,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

assessment year 2014-15. From the perusal of the reasons it reveals that the case has been reopened for the reason 'The information in this case has been received on 'Insight Portal' and is flagged as 'High Risk CRIU/VRU'. This information has been shared by Income Tax Officer (Inv.), Bhopal based on investigation carried on by him in the case

SHRI PREMNARAYAN,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

assessment year 2014-15. From the perusal of the reasons it reveals that the case has been reopened for the reason 'The information in this case has been received on 'Insight Portal' and is flagged as 'High Risk CRIU/VRU'. This information has been shared by Income Tax Officer (Inv.), Bhopal based on investigation carried on by him in the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

reopening proceedings. The appellant further submitted, "The said objections were disposed off by the AO by passing an order dated 15.12.2017 reiterating the allegations as mentioned in the reasons recorded. The Ld. AO has not given any credence to the various replies filed as well as the retraction letter. Thus, the assessing officer has gone by ignoring the explanations filed

BMG CALCUTTAWALA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. AO CPC (TDS), ITO TDS(1) INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed\"

assessment year prior to 1-6-2015. However, we\nmake it clear that, if any deductor has already paid the fee\nafter intimation received under section 200A, the aforesaid view\nwill not permit the deductor to reopen the said question unless\nhe has made payment under protest.\"\n14. The Hon'ble High Court thus held that where the impugned\nnotices

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

assessment order as framed by the Id. A.O. deserves only to be quashed as same has been passed without addressing/disposing off the objections raised by the appellant on the reasons recorded by the Id. A.O. for reopening its case. Page 11 of 15 Globus Housing ITA. No.872/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2014-15 5.On the facts and circumstances of the case

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

assessment year Page 15 of 23 M/s. Supreme Transport Company ITA No. 914 & 917/Ind/2024 – AY 2013-14 Financial Year 2012-13 / Q2 – 24Q & Q3-24Q] prior to 1-6-2015. However, we make it clear that, if any deductor has already paid the fee after intimation received under section 200A, the aforesaid view will not permit the deductor to reopen

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

assessment year Page 15 of 23 M/s. Supreme Transport Company ITA No. 914 & 917/Ind/2024 – AY 2013-14 Financial Year 2012-13 / Q2 – 24Q & Q3-24Q] prior to 1-6-2015. However, we make it clear that, if any deductor has already paid the fee after intimation received under section 200A, the aforesaid view will not permit the deductor to reopen

JAGDISH SOLANKI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER JHABUA, JHABUA

Appeal is dismissed

reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 to tax the escaped income and any other income, which comes to notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section.\n6. In this case no return of income was filed for the year under consideration accordingly in this case no assessment was made and the only requirement to initiate proceedings

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

reopened vide notice u/s 148 issued on 04.03.2015 mainly on the ground that the assesse has made cash payment of Rs.17,50,000/- in respect of the purchase of land at Khajuri Khurd which is not allowable u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The AO Page 2 of 30 ITA No. 6 to 9 & 11/Ind/2023 Essarjee Construction P. Ltd. Page

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT-1 (1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

reopened vide notice u/s 148 issued on 04.03.2015 mainly on the ground that the assesse has made cash payment of Rs.17,50,000/- in respect of the purchase of land at Khajuri Khurd which is not allowable u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The AO Page 2 of 30 ITA No. 6 to 9 & 11/Ind/2023 Essarjee Construction P. Ltd. Page

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

reopened vide notice u/s 148 issued on 04.03.2015 mainly on the ground that the assesse has made cash payment of Rs.17,50,000/- in respect of the purchase of land at Khajuri Khurd which is not allowable u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The AO Page 2 of 30 ITA No. 6 to 9 & 11/Ind/2023 Essarjee Construction P. Ltd. Page

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

reopened vide notice u/s 148 issued on 04.03.2015 mainly on the ground that the assesse has made cash payment of Rs.17,50,000/- in respect of the purchase of land at Khajuri Khurd which is not allowable u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The AO Page 2 of 30 ITA No. 6 to 9 & 11/Ind/2023 Essarjee Construction P. Ltd. Page

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

reopened vide notice u/s 148 issued on 04.03.2015 mainly on the ground that the assesse has made cash payment of Rs.17,50,000/- in respect of the purchase of land at Khajuri Khurd which is not allowable u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The AO Page 2 of 30 ITA No. 6 to 9 & 11/Ind/2023 Essarjee Construction P. Ltd. Page

RAJ KUMAR PALIA,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - ITARSI, CAMP AT BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2009-10 Raj Kumar Paliya Dcit/Acit M/S. Da Construction

TDS was required to be deducted u/s 194C but was not deducted.” [emphasis supplied] 3.2 Aggrieved, the assessee again carried matter in appeal to CIT(A) whereupon the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of depreciation but restricted disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) to 30% of Rs. 2,16,333/- taking into account the subsequent clarificatory amendment made by Govt

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

reopening of assessment was based on mere change of opinion by the Ld. AO. The proceedings u/s 147 was initiated without there being reason to believe that income of the appellant has escaped assessment. Further, there being no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, the reassessment proceedings

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

reopening of assessment was based on mere change of opinion by the Ld. AO. The proceedings u/s 147 was initiated without there being reason to believe that income of the appellant has escaped assessment. Further, there being no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, the reassessment proceedings

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

reopening of assessment was based on mere change of opinion by the Ld. AO. The proceedings u/s 147 was initiated without there being reason to believe that income of the appellant has escaped assessment. Further, there being no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, the reassessment proceedings