PREM CHAWLA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for sake of brevity). The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number CIT(A)-3 Bhopal/IT/10289/2016-17/139 dated 28.06.2024 of CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2000-2001 and the Page

PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for sake of brevity). The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number CIT(A)-3 Bhopal/IT/10289/2016-17/139 dated 28.06.2024 of CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2000-2001 and the Page

PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter\nreferred to as the 'Act' for sake of brevity). The assessee is\naggrieved by the order bearing Number CIT(A)-3\nBhopal/IT/10289/2016-17/139 dated 28.06.2024 of CIT(A) u/s\n250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned\norder\". The relevant Assessment Year is 2000-2001 and the\ncorresponding

PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter\nreferred to as the 'Act' for sake of brevity). The assessee is\naggrieved by the order bearing Number CIT(A)-3\nBhopal/IT/10289/2016-17/139 dated 28.06.2024 of CIT(A) u/s\n250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned\norder\". The relevant Assessment Year is 2000-2001 and the\ncorresponding

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

10 of 25 ITANo.275 to 277/Ind/2023 RVT Technologies Ltd. otherwise then by an account payee cheques or account payee bank draft. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A) but could not succeed. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that during the year under consideration the assessee company repaid loan of various concerned either through

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

10 of 25 ITANo.275 to 277/Ind/2023 RVT Technologies Ltd. otherwise then by an account payee cheques or account payee bank draft. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A) but could not succeed. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that during the year under consideration the assessee company repaid loan of various concerned either through

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

10 of 25 ITANo.275 to 277/Ind/2023 RVT Technologies Ltd. otherwise then by an account payee cheques or account payee bank draft. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A) but could not succeed. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that during the year under consideration the assessee company repaid loan of various concerned either through

SEEMA JAIN,INDORE vs. ITO 1(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2013-14 Seema Jain, Ito 1(1) 73-Ba, Scheme No.94, Indore Regency Adrise, Near बनाम/ Bombay Hospital, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Adtpj4652K Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025

46,661/- declared by assessee without any change. 2.1 Subsequently, the AO re-opened assessee’s case u/s 147 through notice dated 19.03.2019 on the basis that the sale consideration of the impugned property as per section 50C would be Rs. 42,86,000/- (equivalent to the ‘valuation of stamps authority’) but in the original assessment the same had been

SHRI UMAKANT SHARMA,JHABUA vs. THE JCIT , RATLAM

In the result, appeal for A

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

10 and the same was repaid by the assesse during A.Y.2009-10 itself. He has submitted that the initiation of the penalty proceedings u/s 271D & 271E was invalid as there was no satisfaction recorded by the AO in the case of assessee or in the case of Shri Ramesh Chand Upadhya. He has further submitted that there is an inordinate delay

SHRI UMAKANT SHARMA,JHABUA vs. THE JCIT , RATLAM

In the result, appeal for A

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

10 and the same was repaid by the assesse during A.Y.2009-10 itself. He has submitted that the initiation of the penalty proceedings u/s 271D & 271E was invalid as there was no satisfaction recorded by the AO in the case of assessee or in the case of Shri Ramesh Chand Upadhya. He has further submitted that there is an inordinate delay

SHRI UMAKANT SHARMA,JHABUA vs. THE JCIT , RATLAM

In the result, appeal for A

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

10 and the same was repaid by the assesse during A.Y.2009-10 itself. He has submitted that the initiation of the penalty proceedings u/s 271D & 271E was invalid as there was no satisfaction recorded by the AO in the case of assessee or in the case of Shri Ramesh Chand Upadhya. He has further submitted that there is an inordinate delay

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

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

46,61,842 5,37,00,603 7.2 All these figures as given by the AO are based on the assumption of the AO that the transactions recorded in the loose paper against the name of these persons are cash loan taken by the assessee on interest @ 10%. There is nothing in the loose paper to show that the interest

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

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

46,61,842 5,37,00,603 7.2 All these figures as given by the AO are based on the assumption of the AO that the transactions recorded in the loose paper against the name of these persons are cash loan taken by the assessee on interest @ 10%. There is nothing in the loose paper to show that the interest

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

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

46,61,842 5,37,00,603 7.2 All these figures as given by the AO are based on the assumption of the AO that the transactions recorded in the loose paper against the name of these persons are cash loan taken by the assessee on interest @ 10%. There is nothing in the loose paper to show that the interest

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

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

46,61,842 5,37,00,603 7.2 All these figures as given by the AO are based on the assumption of the AO that the transactions recorded in the loose paper against the name of these persons are cash loan taken by the assessee on interest @ 10%. There is nothing in the loose paper to show that the interest

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

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

46,61,842 5,37,00,603 7.2 All these figures as given by the AO are based on the assumption of the AO that the transactions recorded in the loose paper against the name of these persons are cash loan taken by the assessee on interest @ 10%. There is nothing in the loose paper to show that the interest

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

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

46,61,842 5,37,00,603 7.2 All these figures as given by the AO are based on the assumption of the AO that the transactions recorded in the loose paper against the name of these persons are cash loan taken by the assessee on interest @ 10%. There is nothing in the loose paper to show that the interest

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

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

46,61,842 5,37,00,603 7.2 All these figures as given by the AO are based on the assumption of the AO that the transactions recorded in the loose paper against the name of these persons are cash loan taken by the assessee on interest @ 10%. There is nothing in the loose paper to show that the interest