SHRI PANKAJ KALANI,INDORE vs. THE JCIT, OSD (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2012-13

additional income was also paid by the appellant. 2] That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in maintaining the levy of penalty under section 271AAA Deepak and Pankaj Kalani /ITANos.700 & 701/Ind/2019 of the Act even when the show cause notice as issued for levy of penalty was defective

THE A C I T CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL vs. S V INFRA DEVELOPERS, BHOPAL

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

reassess the income. The Assessing Officer did not find any irregularity of any sort so as to warrant any addition

SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

additional income of Rs. 68,34,975/- and subsequently levied penalty of Rs. 6,83,498/- being 10% of such income of Rs. 68,34,975/- stating that the appellant surrendered such undisclosed income during the course of search. A.7] The appellant thereafter preferred an appeal before the Ld CIT (A)-3, Bhopal against the penalty order as passed under

SHRI SANDEEP MEHTA,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEEMUCH

In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradिनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/ Assessment Year : 2009-10 वष" Shri Sandeep Mehta, The Income Tax Officer, S/O. Shri Jay Singh Mehta, Vs Neemuch Vijay Talkies Chouraha, Neemuch (Mp) Pan : Adbpm 8174 B "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17 /08/2021 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav: The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Ujjain (Mp) Dated 28.11.2017 Passed For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. In The First Ground Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged Reopening Of Assessment By Issuance Of Notice Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, While Impugning The Orders Of The Revenue Authorities, Contended That The Assessment Was Reopened For The Reason That The Assessee Has Made Cash Deposits Amounting To Rs.11,00,000/-, Without Disclosing The Source Of Deposits & This

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section. According to the Hon’ble Courts the expression “and also any other income” would contemplate that any other income could only be added if any addition

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

income declared in the returns; and IT(SS) No.30 & 31/Ind/2023 ITA (SS) No.305/Ind/2023 Shailendra Sharma (iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition

M/S JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-II, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Jayganga Exim India Pvt. Dy. Cit, Limited Central-Ii, [Formerly Known As ‘Jay Jyoti Bhopal (India) Pvt. Ltd.’] बनाम/ 26, Col. Biswas Road, Ground Floor, Vs. West Side Flat, Kolkata (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacj 8822 E Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

Income-tax Act, 1961, and following the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (I) Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 19( S.C.). (ii) That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of ld. AO in passing the impugned reassessment order u/s 144/147

THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI VINOD VAISH, BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

addition of un disclosed investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition

SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SAHU,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

addition of un disclosed investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition

SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA PARASHAR,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

addition of un disclosed investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition

SHRI KHEMRAJ SINGH CHAUHAN,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

addition of un disclosed investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition

SHRI KAMLESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

addition of un disclosed investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition

SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

addition of un disclosed investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

addition of un disclosed investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition

SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH DHARIWAL,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

addition of un disclosed investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition

SHRI LALTA PRASAD CHOUDHARY,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

addition of un disclosed investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition

SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA,DABRA vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

addition of un disclosed investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHARY,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

addition of un disclosed investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition

BIRENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,GWALIOR vs. ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

addition of un disclosed investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition