M/S. SANEE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT , BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Sanee Infrastructure Pr.Cit-2, Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Bhopal D-1, Machna Colony, 6 No Bus Stop, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aagcs8307M Appellant By Shri Arun Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit Date Of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01.06.2020 O R D E R

section 263( I) of I.T. Act which is reproduced here below may also be kept in mind for guidance by the AO while passing the fresh assessment order pursuant to this order u/s 263. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the following written 7 ITANo.742/Ind/2018 submissions and various judgments and decisions contending that necessary enquiry was conducted

M/S. S.R. FERRO ALLOYS,JHABUA vs. THE PCIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

220 Taxman 3 (Mag) (Guj.) and CIT v. Umang Hiralal Thakkar [2014] 42 Laxmann.com 194/226 Taxman 28 (Mag.) (Guj) and therefore this court is are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income Tax is not correct. Issue decided in favour of assesssee. 34. Further the Hon,ble High Court of Gujarat

SHRI GOPAL KRISHNA SONI,MANDSAUR vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RATLAM

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2000-01 is

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

220(2) at Rs. 8,51,886/- The appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or amend any grounds of appeal.” 17. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records relating to these two appeals are that post survey u/s 133A of the Act, assessee filed income tax returns for Assessment Year 2001-02 & 2002-03. The undisclosed income surrendered

SHRI GOPAL SONI,MANDSAUR vs. ADDLL. CIT , RATLAM

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2000-01 is

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

220(2) at Rs. 8,51,886/- The appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or amend any grounds of appeal.” 17. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records relating to these two appeals are that post survey u/s 133A of the Act, assessee filed income tax returns for Assessment Year 2001-02 & 2002-03. The undisclosed income surrendered

SHRI GOPAL KRISHNA SONI,MANDSAUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME-TAX , RATLAM

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2000-01 is

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

220(2) at Rs. 8,51,886/- The appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or amend any grounds of appeal.” 17. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records relating to these two appeals are that post survey u/s 133A of the Act, assessee filed income tax returns for Assessment Year 2001-02 & 2002-03. The undisclosed income surrendered

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S FERRO CONCREATE CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT. LTD INDORE, INDORE

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned.” Thus, the words “Income chargeable to tax” are of prime importance to the section 147. However, it can be seen from the reasons as reproduced above that the Assessing Officer did not mention the words “Income chargeable to tax” in the reasons which

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned.” Thus, the words “Income chargeable to tax” are of prime importance to the section 147. However, it can be seen from the reasons as reproduced above that the Assessing Officer did not mention the words “Income chargeable to tax” in the reasons which

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned.” Thus, the words “Income chargeable to tax” are of prime importance to the section 147. However, it can be seen from the reasons as reproduced above that the Assessing Officer did not mention the words “Income chargeable to tax” in the reasons which

SARTHAK REAL BUILT PVT. LTD, ,INDORE vs. DY, CIT,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned.” Thus, the words “Income chargeable to tax” are of prime importance to the section 147. However, it can be seen from the reasons as reproduced above that the Assessing Officer did not mention the words “Income chargeable to tax” in the reasons which

INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. PURUSHOTTAM GUPTA, 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/250/2023-24/ 1060613547(1) dated 07.02.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order". The relevant Assessment Year