SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN CHOURSIYA, RAJGARH vs. ITO, RAJGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal i

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

148/- as made to the total income of the appellant on account of estimation of net profit @ 8% without properly appreciating the facts of the case and submissions made before him.” Ground Nos.1 to 3 2. In ground nos. 1 to 3, the assessee has challenged the finding of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.88,78,365/- made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE vs. FERRO CONCRETE CON INDIA PVT. LTD., INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Ferro Concrete Con India Income-Tax Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ 3/5/7B, Bhagirathpura Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaacf2726K Revenueby Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Date Of Hearing 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026

148. In response to notice, the assessee re-filed return of income repeating the original income of Rs. 12,20,48,700/-. Thereafter, the AO issued notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) and the assessee made compliances. Finally, the AO completed assessment after making an addition of Rs. 84,76,000/- u/s 69 treating the full amount of purchase made

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

148 dated 28.03.2017 are unlawful, bad in law and without jurisdiction hence the assessment made be kindly cancelled. 2. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned lower authorities erred and in not justified in assessing the income of the assessee as the income from business and profession

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

148 dated 28.03.2017 are unlawful, bad in law and without jurisdiction hence the assessment made be kindly cancelled. 2. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned lower authorities erred and in not justified in assessing the income of the assessee as the income from business and profession

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

148 of the Act even when information. was received during the course of search and notice ought to be issued under section 153C of the Income Tax Act. 4.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Assessing officer erred in calculating the amount of long-term capital gain on transfer of Agricultural

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

148 of the paper book Vol.II reconciliation of purchases quantity/inwards in grams was 17365.820 worth Rs.4,60,24,065/- and upon reconciliation of sales quantity in grams was 17477.862 worth Rs.5,80,22,024/- (Page147 of paper book Vol.II).\n\n4.4 In the “impugned assessment order” an amount of Rs.3,43,59,000/- is added to ROI of Rs.14

KUNAL VYAS,INDORE vs. ITO 4(1), IND, MAIN BUILDING, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus resulting in unexplained investment entries, particularly when income returned has been accepted by AO. 9) Because, the impugned assessment order is without jurisdiction being non est in law on account of non-observance of the mandatory statutory procedure laid down under the provisions of section 144B of the Act. 10) Because, the impugned assessment order

JAI PRAKASH SHAHANI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradjai Prakashshahani, Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S Jai Prakash Impex, Nfac, Delhi Vs. 73, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Apqps7948G Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025

bogus purchase made from M/s Garima Enterprises but finally after carrying out the reassessment proceedings has accepted the genuineness of the purchase and has not invoked Section 69C of the Act applicable for unexplained expenditure and has concluded the proceedings only by making minor disallowance u/s 37 of the Act for unverifiable purchase. This subsequent observation

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

2 of 25 ITANo.275 to 277/Ind/2023 RVT Technologies Ltd. claimed against unit-1. He has referred to the profit and loss account of unit –I as well as unit-II at page no.35 & 42 of the paper book and submitted that the assessee has given all the details recorded in the books of account and particularly in the profit

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

2 of 25 ITANo.275 to 277/Ind/2023 RVT Technologies Ltd. claimed against unit-1. He has referred to the profit and loss account of unit –I as well as unit-II at page no.35 & 42 of the paper book and submitted that the assessee has given all the details recorded in the books of account and particularly in the profit

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

2 of 25 ITANo.275 to 277/Ind/2023 RVT Technologies Ltd. claimed against unit-1. He has referred to the profit and loss account of unit –I as well as unit-II at page no.35 & 42 of the paper book and submitted that the assessee has given all the details recorded in the books of account and particularly in the profit

HIMANSHU BOTADEARA HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

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

bogus transaction of purchase and sale of shares of M/s. Twenty First Century India Limited. In response to notice u/s 148, the assessee filed return of income on 18.4.2018, declaring the same income as it was declared in the original return of income. The AO completed the assessment u/s 147 read with Section 144 of the Income

HIMANSHU BOTADEARA HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

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

bogus transaction of purchase and sale of shares of M/s. Twenty First Century India Limited. In response to notice u/s 148, the assessee filed return of income on 18.4.2018, declaring the same income as it was declared in the original return of income. The AO completed the assessment u/s 147 read with Section 144 of the Income

PRIME CONSTRUCTIONS,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2018-19

section 69C, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC are separately initiated. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Assessment Order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act, Page 2 of 7 Prime Construction A.Y. 2018-19 before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “Impugned order” has partly allowed, the first appeal of the assessee on the grounds & reasons

SEEMA LUNAWAT,RATLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDSAUR

Appeal is allowed

bogus LTCG/STCL. However, the AO did not specify any\ntransaction related to the alleged scrip, also the Ld. AO could not mention that\nwhether it was purchased or sold, thereby proving that the case was reopened on\nbaseless assumptions.\n(d) The reasons for reopening mention, \"escapement of income of Rs.189,650/-",\nwhereas the AO, in the assessment order, added

THE ITO 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

148 of the Act dated 31.03.2018. The information so received from DDIT(Inv.), Unit-6(2), Mumbai, is this that the assessee was a beneficiary having trading of Rs.3,60,228/- in the share/scrip of VAS Infrastructure Ltd. which is a penny stock listed company and has made a bogus long term capital gain exemption under Section

RITESH BANSAL,KHAJURI BAZAR, INDORE vs. PCIT, INDORE-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, OPP. WHITE CHURCH, WHITE CHURCH ROAD, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year:2014-15 Ritesh Bansal, Pr. Cit-1, G-16, Ganesh Complex Indore बनाम/ Khajuri Bazar, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Acipb4025C Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal & Harshit Chowkse, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2025

148, you had filed return on 28/04/2021. Subsequently, notice u/s 143(2) had been issued on 15/12/2021 along with the reasons recorded. As per records of this office, no compliance/objection has been furnished till date. It is assumed you do not have to say anything against the reopening. Accordingly you are requested to explain following issue of reopening. Search

BABITA CHELAWAT,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed & the impugned order is set aside

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

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 is bad in law, without jurisdiction, and liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 2 reassessment was completed without complying with the statutory requirements of law. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 3 Hon. CIT(A) erred