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

properties by the assessee had escaped assessment. Ld. AR submitted that the Issue No. 2 raised by Ld. PCIT was neither a reason of re- opening nor a matter which was considered by Ld. AO during the course of re-assessment proceeding in terms of the main body of section 147 / Explanation 3 to section 147. Hence the Issue

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

house property and income from partnership firm. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 was carried out on 12.01.2021 at the premises of the assessee and associates of JRG Group. During the course of search and seizure operation at the residential premises of the assessee various incriminating documents were found and seized. As per the seized documents BS-02 back

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, LOCATION

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

house property and income from partnership firm. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 was carried out on 12.01.2021 at the premises of the assessee and associates of JRG Group. During the course of search and seizure operation at the residential premises of the assessee various incriminating documents were found and seized. As per the seized documents BS-02 back

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

house property and income from partnership firm. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 was carried out on 12.01.2021 at the premises of the assessee and associates of JRG Group. During the course of search and seizure operation at the residential premises of the assessee various incriminating documents were found and seized. As per the seized documents BS-02 back

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. AASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

house property and income from partnership firm. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 was carried out on 12.01.2021 at the premises of the assessee and associates of JRG Group. During the course of search and seizure operation at the residential premises of the assessee various incriminating documents were found and seized. As per the seized documents BS-02 back

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

SMT. SARLA JAIN,KHANDWA vs. ITO WARD 1 KHANDWA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sarla Jain, Ito, C/O Nakoda Marketing, Ward-1, बनाम/ Bhavani Mata Road, Khandwa Khandwa Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abvpj1316J Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2023

155 Taxman 659 (SC), Ld. AR argued that by erroneously assuming jurisdiction, no authority can confer upon itself the jurisdiction which it does not possess. Ld. AR contended that the assumption of jurisdiction by AO u/s 143(2)/143(3) is clearly illegal and deserves to be quashed. 12. To buttress assessee’s understanding, Ld. AR also referred

JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

property under consideration, giving following reliefs is contradictory :- (i) Relief of Rs. 48,07,238/- (para 3.3.5) ignoring that the ‘furniture and fixtures’ involve completely different items as dealt by Ld. CIT(A) at para 3.4 ? (ii) Relief given based on use by DVO of CPWD rates, as compared to the lower State PWD rates ? (iii) Relief given on architect

THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE vs. JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

property under consideration, giving following reliefs is contradictory :- (i) Relief of Rs. 48,07,238/- (para 3.3.5) ignoring that the ‘furniture and fixtures’ involve completely different items as dealt by Ld. CIT(A) at para 3.4 ? (ii) Relief given based on use by DVO of CPWD rates, as compared to the lower State PWD rates ? (iii) Relief given on architect