M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

business concerns and individuals, surrendered unaccounted income of Rs. 51 crore and offered it for taxation and also gave post dated cheques of Rs. 7.51 crores towards taxes. Subsequently, assessment proceedings u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act were carried out in the group cases after issuing necessary notices as required under the law. The unaccounted income

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

business concerns and individuals, surrendered unaccounted income of Rs. 51 crore and offered it for taxation and also gave post dated cheques of Rs. 7.51 crores towards taxes. Subsequently, assessment proceedings u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act were carried out in the group cases after issuing necessary notices as required under the law. The unaccounted income

M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

business concerns and individuals, surrendered unaccounted income of Rs. 51 crore and offered it for taxation and also gave post dated cheques of Rs. 7.51 crores towards taxes. Subsequently, assessment proceedings u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act were carried out in the group cases after issuing necessary notices as required under the law. The unaccounted income

HARISH CHANDRA PUROHIT,RATLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1, RATLAM, RATLAM

In the result- the Impugned order is set aside as and by way

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2018-19

business income. Thus, the action of the Ld. AO of invoking Section 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act is against the facts of the case and provisions of the Act and is liable to be quashed and the addition is liable to be deleted. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating the reassessment

M/S. BHANDARI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

business done and interest income shown to have been received by the assessee. No names were given as to the parties to whom the loans were advanced, with amounts and rate of interest and as to when the interest income was received. It was not necessary to further detail the reasons given by the Commissioner because on the face

M. P POLICE SAKH SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT UJJAIN,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2(1), UJJAIN

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradm.P. Police Sakh Sahakari Ito 2(1), Sanstha Maryadit, Ujjain 32Nd Battalion, Vs. Dewas Road Nagari, Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabam5551C Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2025 O R D E R

business of providing credit facilities to its members. 9. That on the facts and circumstances and in law The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in in not considering and appreciating the 2 M.P. Police Sakh Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit– A.Y 2020-21 material fact that the earlier assessment years the claim of the appellant

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

reassessment order is contrary to law and facts and without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and without confronting the entire adverse material to the assessee and by recording incorrect facts and findings and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. (x) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

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

income for A.Yrs. 2008-09 to 2013-14 on 7.11.2014. The case of the assessee is that the return for A.Y. 2012-13 was filed on 7.11.2012. As per section 143(2) of the Act, the last date on which notice for assessment would have been issued was 30.9.2013. All the other returns are filed on earliest date

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

business, such entries were discussed in the order dated 11.11.2016 passed in Sahara's case by the Settlement Commission and the documents have not been relied upon by the Commission against assessee, and thus such documents have no evidentiary value against third parties. O we are of the considered opinion 131 12 IT(SS) No.30 & 31/Ind/2023 ITA (SS) No.305/Ind/2023 Shailendra

ANJU JAIN, LR SUSHIL JAIN,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

business and only because there was a search by department. He contended that that once the assessee has surrendered undisclosed income in statements u/s 132(4), the payment of tax on such income is not sufficient and the assessee must suffer penalty also. He supported the CIT(A)’s observation that the Page 16 of 40 Mukesh Kumar Ranka & Anju

ANJU JAIN, LR SHRI SUSHIL JAIN ,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

business and only because there was a search by department. He contended that that once the assessee has surrendered undisclosed income in statements u/s 132(4), the payment of tax on such income is not sufficient and the assessee must suffer penalty also. He supported the CIT(A)’s observation that the Page 16 of 40 Mukesh Kumar Ranka & Anju

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

business and only because there was a search by department. He contended that that once the assessee has surrendered undisclosed income in statements u/s 132(4), the payment of tax on such income is not sufficient and the assessee must suffer penalty also. He supported the CIT(A)’s observation that the Page 16 of 40 Mukesh Kumar Ranka & Anju

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

business and only because there was a search by department. He contended that that once the assessee has surrendered undisclosed income in statements u/s 132(4), the payment of tax on such income is not sufficient and the assessee must suffer penalty also. He supported the CIT(A)’s observation that the Page 16 of 40 Mukesh Kumar Ranka & Anju

M/S. SANEE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT , BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Sanee Infrastructure Pr.Cit-2, Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Bhopal D-1, Machna Colony, 6 No Bus Stop, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aagcs8307M Appellant By Shri Arun Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit Date Of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01.06.2020 O R D E R

reassessment and proceedings have u/s 263 of the Act were initiated on the same ground. Further, we find that Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. as relied by the AO wherein it has been held that where an assessee is executing an infrastructure development fixed price contract

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

business. We find that prior to the introduction of the proviso to section 2(15), there was no dispute that the assessee was established for charitable purposes. The main object of the assessee is for the benefit of General Public to provide them information regarding employments, education institutions and other information of the govt. schemes, therefore, we find force

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

business. We find that prior to the introduction of the proviso to section 2(15), there was no dispute that the assessee was established for charitable purposes. The main object of the assessee is for the benefit of General Public to provide them information regarding employments, education institutions and other information of the govt. schemes, therefore, we find force

LOKESH GHIYA,NAGDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, UJJAIN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanilokesh Ghiya Ito 27, Government Colony Nagda Ujjain Vs. M.P. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aoipg2695D Assessee By Shri Amit Choudhary Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.04.2024

reassessment proceedings and filing the return of income in response thereto showing a higher income without showing the basis thereof and denying the entries in the ICICI bank account as not that of his and thereafter making out a claim of peak cash deposit do not persuade any adjudicating authority to accept the claim. And Peak Cash Deposit

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. section 147 the AO disallowed the benefit of section 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assesse on commercial basis. Similar for A.Y.2016-17 & 2017-18 the AO while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee