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

house properties, however no income has been declared by the assessee. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax more than Rs 2,00,000/- has escaped assessment in term of explanation 2 of section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, notice under section 148

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

house properties, however no income has been declared by the assessee. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax more than Rs 2,00,000/- has escaped assessment in term of explanation 2 of section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, notice under section 148

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

house properties, however no income has been declared by the assessee. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax more than Rs 2,00,000/- has escaped assessment in term of explanation 2 of section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, notice under section 148

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 ISHWAR PATEL,DHAR vs. THE ITO, DHAR

In the result, ground no. 4 in both the years are also

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 148 of the Act dated 18.1.2000 was issued and duly served upon the assessee. In compliance, the assessee filed the return of income on 3.3.2000 disclosing income from house property

SHRI ISHWAR PATEL,DHAR vs. THE ITO, DHAR

In the result, ground no. 4 in both the years are also

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 148 of the Act dated 18.1.2000 was issued and duly served upon the assessee. In compliance, the assessee filed the return of income on 3.3.2000 disclosing income from house property

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

148- income of the unsecured loan creditor for the Assessment Year 2010-11 150 7.4 Copy of Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss account of the unsecured loan creditor for the year ended 31st March, 2010 wherein the amount receivable 151 from the assessee is duly reflected 7.5 Copy of bank statement of the assessee duly highlighting the amount

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

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

property already took place on 07.01.2011. The seized document is entirely silent about the 9 IT(SS) No.30 & 31/Ind/2023 ITA (SS) No.305/Ind/2023 Shailendra Sharma transaction whether it is a payment or receipt. The addition made by the A.O in respect of other notings in the seized document has been deleted by the CIT(A) in para No. 3.6.2 as under

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

148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred

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

house property, profits & gains of business and profession, income from share in profits of firm and income from other sources. The return for the AY 2010-11 was filed by appellant on 17.03.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 4,49,440/-. On 12.07.2016, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on Jain & Dixit Group. Certain

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

148 of the Act. Therefore, no interference is called for in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, ground No. 2 of the assessee's appeal is dismissed. 11. Now we take up ground No.3 wherein the assessee is aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A) of confirming addition of Rs.10,12,000/- for investment in house property

SHEETAL KAUSHAL,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 5(2), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member)

House No. 9C, v. ITO-5(2), Indrapuri Raisen Road, Bhopal M.P. Bittan Market, Bhopal, Pin. 462022 M.P. PAN-AQOPK6965C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Smt. Nisha Lahoti, CA Respondent by: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 01.03.2023 Date of pronouncement: 22.03.2023 O R D E R SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed

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

RAMKUNWAR PATIDAR,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (4), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, Village Salliya, 2(4), बनाम/ Post Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Blxpp4909C Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

section 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2009-10, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds: Original grounds raised in Form No. 36: 1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO has made addition of Rs. 30,46,354/- as income from

SHRI KHALID AMAN,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Khalid Aman, Pr. Cit-2 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aarpa 4443 L Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2023

148. Finally, the re-opened assessment was completed vide assessment-order dated 16.11.2017 at the originally assessed income of Rs. 7,97,860/-. Subsequently,the Ld. PCIT examined the record of re- assessment-proceeding and viewed that the assessment-order dated 16.11.2017 passed by Ld. AO is erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, which

JAYA JUNEJA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

148, the assessee filed a return of income on 26.04.2022 declaring the same income and capital loss as declared in the original return. During the reassessment proceedings the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanations furnished by the assessee. The Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 50C of the Act in respect of sale of two immovable properties

KALPANA GOSWAMI,BHOPAL vs. I.T.O. 1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Kalpana Goswami, Income-Tax Officer, H.No.955, Banganga, 1(1), बनाम/ North T.T.Nagar, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Awgpg5729E Assessee By Shri Milind Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2024

148 to re-open assessee’s case. In response, the assessee filed return repeating the original income. Thereafter, the AO issued notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) and ultimately completed assessment-order u/s 147 read with section 143(3) after making an addition of Rs. 17,97,300/- u/s 68 on account of unexplained deposits in bank a/c. Aggrieved