M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

reopen the assessment. Thus, the ground no 1 of this appeal challenging the issuance of the notice U/s 148 of the Act has no force and this ground of appeal is rejected. 12. Ground nos. 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 & 2.4 for assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and ground nos. 1.1 to 1.4 for assessment year 2007-08 and Ground

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

reopen the assessment. Thus, the ground no 1 of this appeal challenging the issuance of the notice U/s 148 of the Act has no force and this ground of appeal is rejected. 12. Ground nos. 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 & 2.4 for assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and ground nos. 1.1 to 1.4 for assessment year 2007-08 and Ground

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

reopen the assessment. Thus, the ground no 1 of this appeal challenging the issuance of the notice U/s 148 of the Act has no force and this ground of appeal is rejected. 12. Ground nos. 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 & 2.4 for assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and ground nos. 1.1 to 1.4 for assessment year 2007-08 and Ground

MS. SANGEETA CHOPRA,UJJAIN vs. THE PR. CIT. UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

house. On that basis it has been decided already by the different forums that the assessee under this situation is liable for exemption under Section 54 of the Act. We accept the proposition made by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the above judgment to this effect that this section takes into account all independent residential units particularly

ABHISHEK DHANOTIA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

property. Accordingly, there cannot be a case of undisclosed investment in the instant case. Interest on the housing loan availed for making investment in the impugned flat is claimed as a deduction in the return and has been allowed in the assessment. g. Also, addition made u/s 69 by the Ld. AO is a deeming provision. To apply such

SHRI KRISHAN BAHADUR SAXENA,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:1997-98

reopening of assessment and the wrong assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. We observe that the assessee did not filed its income tax return even though he was earning salary of Rs.88,000/-. The Assessing Officer was having information about the alleged unaccounted investment in residential house which prompted to initiate the assessment proceedings in order to examine

SHRI NARAYAN DAS TOLANI,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

house property was spread over during the period from assessment year 2004-05 to 2006-07. However, the AO considered the same for A.Y. 2007-08, whereas the ld. CIT(A) has directed u/s 150(1) of the Act to take necessary action in terms of report of the DVO in the respective assessment years

ACIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY MEHTA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit (Central)-1, Shri Sanjay Mehta, बनाम/ Bhopal Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Agepm2676G Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Sanjay Mehta, Dcit (Central)-1, बनाम/ Indore Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Agepm2676G Assessee By Shri Sanjay Mehta, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 .03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

house property bought jointly by appellant and his wife stood fully explained. The AO has by the addition of this income apparently taxed, an application of income already offered and taxed separately hence this addition needs to be deleted. Accordingly I allow this ground of appeal. We accordingly confirm the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the revenue

SHANKAR SEWANI,NEW MARKET vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, AAYKAR BHAWAN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Shankar Sewani, Dcit-1(1), 10 Kala Niketan, Bhopal New Market, Vs. T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adkps6959H Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2024 O R D E R

reopening of assessment in Ground No.1 and 2 of the grounds of appeal. This issue is purely legal in nature and goes to the root of the matter. The A.O has recorded the reasons in the assessment order as under: “ Shri Shankar Sewani, (PAN ADKPS6959H) has filed return of income showing total income of Rs.34,04,160/-. The assessee

SATYANARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14

reopen a concluded assessment and exercise of power being quasi-judicial in nature, reasons must be such as to show that enhancement or modification of assessment or cancellation of assessment or directions issued for a fresh assessment were called for, and must irresistibly lead to conclusion that order of Assessing Officer was not only erroneous but was also prejudicial

M/S SWADESH DEVLOPERS AND BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

reopen the assessments and to make an addition. In the present case, decisions of Hon'ble Delhi, Gujarat and Bombay High Courts are in favour of the assessee. The decisions of Hon'ble Kerala High Court and Karnataka High Court are against the assessee. We find that after examining the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgement

SMT SADHNA VOHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO 1(3), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

reopened in the case of both assessees. Secondly, they cannot be said to be incriminating. Even for the A.Y to which they related, i.e. AY 2011-12, the A.O. finalised the 13 [ITA 735/Ind/2018] [Smt. Sadhna Vohra, Bhopal] assessment at the returned income qua each Assessee without making any additions on the basis of those documents. Consequently even the second

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

reopened only on the issue of assessment of capital gain on sale of agricultural land, the details of which are given by the AO as under: “4.1. In the instant case during the course of assessment proceedings it is found that during FY 2011-12 relevant to A.Y 2012-13 assessee has sold his immovable property situated at Survey No.310/1

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

house property, income from business or profession, income from capital gain and income from other sources. There is no dispute that the assessee is doing trading in the shares through its Demat account the copies of which were filed by the Ld. Counsel of the assesse as directed by the bench. On going through the details of Demat account with

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

house property, income from business or profession, income from capital gain and income from other sources. There is no dispute that the assessee is doing trading in the shares through its Demat account the copies of which were filed by the Ld. Counsel of the assesse as directed by the bench. On going through the details of Demat account with

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 for A. Y. 200809 on identical grounds as done in earlier Assessment Year namely A. Y. 200708 which is pending in this Court and ad interim relief has also been granted, restraining the revenue from proceeding with the assessment for A. Y. 200708. The passing of an order on 19 December 2013 by the Assessing Officer in undue haste

SMT. CHANDRAVATI KAITHWAS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

reopened and the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) was framed vide order dated 18.3.2013. The A.O. after considering the facts applied stamp valuation value in respect of property purchased and made addition of Rs.11,15,057/-. The A.O. also made addition in respect of unexplained investment

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAITHWAS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

reopened and the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) was framed vide order dated 18.3.2013. The A.O. after considering the facts applied stamp valuation value in respect of property purchased and made addition of Rs.11,15,057/-. The A.O. also made addition in respect of unexplained investment