BIHARILAL,HOSHANGABAD vs. COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC-DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2018-19 Assessment Unit Of Income- Biharilal, Tax Department S/O Gaurishankar, 508, Ward No. 15, बनाम/ Shobhapur, Vs. Hoshangabad (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Eonpb2765E Assessee By Ms. Saniya Farhaz Memon, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 50C(2), which was duly requested by the Appellant verbally during the course of assessment. Ground6. The learned A.O. has erred in treating Cost of Acquisition of land to be Rs. NIL ignoring the Fair Market Value as on 01.04.2001 for the purpose of computation of long-term Capital gains. Ground7. The learned A.O. has erred in treating Cost

SANTOSH RATHORE,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

capital gains from each script is to be filled in Such ITR-2 was available\nbefore the AO when he recorded the reasons before issue of notice u/s 148 of\nthe Act. It appears that Assessing Officer has recorded the reasons in\nmechanical manner without any independent application of mind and\nwithout making any enquiry nor making any other

AJIT BONDRIYA,LIMASSOL, CYPRUS vs. ITO 2(5), BHOPAL, BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

sections": [ "147", "144", "144B", "148", "142(1)", "69", "148A", "151" ], "issues": "Whether the additions made by the AO on account of unexplained investment and capital gains

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), INDORE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN INDORE vs. GURDEEP SINGH CHHABRA, INDORE

capital gain\nescaped taxation in your hands.\nIn view of the above narrated facts the source of the amount i.e. Rs.41520000/-\nremains unexplained and therefore escaped assessment to that extent for the\nfinancial year under consideration within the meaning of provision of section\n147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\"\nGurdeep Singh Chhabra\nITA No.726/Ind/2024 & CO No.14/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2014-15\nYou

INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(1), BHOPAL, METRO WALK BUILDING vs. RAMESH KUMAR SAHU, LEGAL HEIR OF SMT. RAMPYARI BAI, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiincome Tax Officer 3(1), Ramesh Kumar Sahu बनाम/ Bhopal L/H Of Late Smt. Ram Vs. Pyari Bai, 127 New Market, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Anhps5515N) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025

Capital Gain Rs.2,39,68,000/- 2.13 That the aforesaid assessment order bears No. ITBA/COM/M/17/2019-20/1023475341(1) and same is dated 29.12.2019 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.14 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned

LATE VINAYAK PURANIK THROUGH LEGAL HEIR YASH PURANIK,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshilate Vinayak Puranik Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ Through L/H Yash 3(2), Vs. Puranik, Indore 7/4, New Palasia, Indore

capital gain may please be deleted. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in upholding the addition of rs. 30,25,000/- in account of fixed deposits treating the same as unexplained. 3.1 It was proved before the lower authorities that all FDs have been taken through banking channels from transfer from one account to another and encash

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

148A have not been complied with.] 10.3 Once the A.O has not alleged what information or material fact necessary for the assessment was not disclosed by the assessee then the reopening of the assessment for these Page 17 of 57 Prataap Snacks Limited ITA Nos.370 to 374 & C.O No.6 & 7 assessment years falls in the category of change of opinion

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

148A have not been complied with.] 10.3 Once the A.O has not alleged what information or material fact necessary for the assessment was not disclosed by the assessee then the reopening of the assessment for these Page 17 of 57 Prataap Snacks Limited ITA Nos.370 to 374 & C.O No.6 & 7 assessment years falls in the category of change of opinion

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

148A have not been complied with.] 10.3 Once the A.O has not alleged what information or material fact necessary for the assessment was not disclosed by the assessee then the reopening of the assessment for these Page 17 of 57 Prataap Snacks Limited ITA Nos.370 to 374 & C.O No.6 & 7 assessment years falls in the category of change of opinion

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

148A have not been complied with.] 10.3 Once the A.O has not alleged what information or material fact necessary for the assessment was not disclosed by the assessee then the reopening of the assessment for these Page 17 of 57 Prataap Snacks Limited ITA Nos.370 to 374 & C.O No.6 & 7 assessment years falls in the category of change of opinion

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

148A have not been complied with.] 10.3 Once the A.O has not alleged what information or material fact necessary for the assessment was not disclosed by the assessee then the reopening of the assessment for these Page 17 of 57 Prataap Snacks Limited ITA Nos.370 to 374 & C.O No.6 & 7 assessment years falls in the category of change of opinion

MUNNALAL,KAJLANA, MOLANA, BADNAGAR, UJJAIN vs. ITO, UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Paresh M Joshi & Shri Bijayananda Prusethmunnalal, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Kajlana, Molana, Ujjain Vs. Badnagar, Ujjain

Capital Gain. 2.2 The assessee had not filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19 both u/s 139 & u/s 147/148/148A of the Act. 2.3 Before passing the assessment order the Ld. A.O had issued following notice(s) u/s 148/142(1) of the Act to the assessee which are tabulated as below:- Notice Date of issue Due date compliance