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

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

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

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

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

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

M/S 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

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

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 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

BHARGAVI KESWANI,INDORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- II, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Income-tax\ndepartment conducted two distinct searches, namely (i) the 1st search on\n12.01.2018 on Shri Dilip Kumar Gupta / a business concern of Shri Dilip\nGupta named “DG Homes & Realty Pvt. Ltd. (DGHPL)” and (ii) the 2nd search\non 16.05.2018 on AHPL & ACPL as also upon assessee. Shri Dileep\nGupta/DGHPL was a marketing agent of AHPL & ACPL. During 1st search

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

reassessment in the case of the appellant company without considering the material fact that in the instant case, the Assessing Officer by himself had not formed any belief as regard to escapement of any income chargeable to tax in the hands of the appellant and instead, merely on the finding of some other Assessing Officer in some other case

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

reassessment in the case of the appellant company without considering the material fact that in the instant case, the Assessing Officer by himself had not formed any belief as regard to escapement of any income chargeable to tax in the hands of the appellant and instead, merely on the finding of some other Assessing Officer in some other case

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

reassess the total income of an assessee. We also find that the expression ‘total income’ has been defined under clause (45) of section 2 of the Act and according to which, the expression ‘total income’ means the total amount of income referred to in section 5, computed in the manner laid down in the Act. Thus, in our considered opinion

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

reassess the total income of an assessee. We also find that the expression ‘total income’ has been defined under clause (45) of section 2 of the Act and according to which, the expression ‘total income’ means the total amount of income referred to in section 5, computed in the manner laid down in the Act. Thus, in our considered opinion