SMT. SHARDA,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

exempt u/s 2(14)(iii) of the Act. Ld. AR has further contended that since it was reassessment framed by the AO in the faceless

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

exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The AO reopened the assessment for A.Y.2011-12 & 2013-14 based on the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) for A.Y.2014-15. In the reassessment

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

exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The AO reopened the assessment for A.Y.2011-12 & 2013-14 based on the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) for A.Y.2014-15. In the reassessment

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

exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The AO reopened the assessment for A.Y.2011-12 & 2013-14 based on the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) for A.Y.2014-15. In the reassessment

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

exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The AO reopened the assessment for A.Y.2011-12 & 2013-14 based on the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) for A.Y.2014-15. In the reassessment

THE NIMAR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KHANDWA vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 The Nimar Educational Cit(Exemption) , Society, Bhopal बनाम/ Harsud Road, Civil Lines, East Nimar, Vs. Khandwa (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aabtt1409K Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

reassessment, cannot be upheld. Therefore, the revisionary proceedings exercised by the CIT is not correct. Hence, the said order of CIT is set-aside.” (iv) Lastly, Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee has not claimed any exemption

PRADEEP KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. CIT-I INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Pradeep Khandelwal, Pr. Cit (1), बनाम/ 196,Bajrang Nagar, Indore. Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Akppk2676R Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023

exemption u/s 54/54F. Therefore, the revisionary action has no valid basis to stand. Faced with situation, we have no option except to quash the impugned revision-order. We, therefore, quash the revision- order and re-store the reassessment

NILIMA KOTHARI,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSTT. CENTRE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act at Rs.24,39,177/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain from sale of equity shares of M/s. Goenka business & Finance Ltd. The case was processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. Subsequently for carrying 4 Smt. Nilima Kothari out the reassessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S FERRO CONCREATE CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT. LTD INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

reassessment issued u/s 148—Petitioner claimed that, reasons recorded by AO did not satisfy requirement of law in terms of sections 147/148 and there was no failure by Petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and neither was such failure recorded in reasons—Held, there was full disclosure by Assessee of all material facts relating

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

reassessment issued u/s 148—Petitioner claimed that, reasons recorded by AO did not satisfy requirement of law in terms of sections 147/148 and there was no failure by Petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and neither was such failure recorded in reasons—Held, there was full disclosure by Assessee of all material facts relating

SARTHAK REAL BUILT PVT. LTD, ,INDORE vs. DY, CIT,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

reassessment issued u/s 148—Petitioner claimed that, reasons recorded by AO did not satisfy requirement of law in terms of sections 147/148 and there was no failure by Petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and neither was such failure recorded in reasons—Held, there was full disclosure by Assessee of all material facts relating

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

reassessment issued u/s 148—Petitioner claimed that, reasons recorded by AO did not satisfy requirement of law in terms of sections 147/148 and there was no failure by Petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and neither was such failure recorded in reasons—Held, there was full disclosure by Assessee of all material facts relating

SHRI PANKAJ VYAS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO -1 (2) , BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanipankaj Vyas Ito-1(2) House No.20, Geet Gunglows, Bhopal Phase-5, Narela Shankari Vs. Bhopal

exemption u/s 54EC to 50%. He has referred to the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that this finding of the CIT(A) is Page 2 of 4 Pankaj Vyas Page 3 of 4 contrary to the record as evident from the sale deed whereby the assesse has sold the land in question. Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that

SANTOSH RATHORE,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

reassessment\nproceedings have been initiated merely to make further enquiry / roving enquiry /\nfishing enquiry without any basis and without any tangible material or information\non the basis of suspicion and incorrect reasons and are thus, liable to be dropped.\nThanking you,\nYours faithfully,\nSANTOSH KUMAR RATHORE\n(Assessee)\nCA. RAJESH MEHTA\n(Authorized Representative)\nDate: 24th January

SHRI SUBHASH ARORA,RAISEN vs. THE ITO 2(5), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Subhash Arora, Ito, Hig 9/B, Ishan Park, 5(2), Patel Nagar, Bhopal बनाम/ Raisen Road, Bhopal Vs.

reassessment initiated on the basis of reasons recorded as per AIR information regarding cash deposit in Bank of Baroda is bad in law in absence of any concrete information regarding escape of income. Thus the Notice and proceedings instituted is bad and unjust. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition

SHAILESH KALWADIA (HUF),UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BPL-C(91)(1), BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 based solely on third-party information, without granting the assessee any opportunity for cross-examination or verification of such information, which is bad in law. 2. Addition of?18,42,978/-on Account of Alleged Bogus LTCG: The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of?18,42,978/- as unexplained income under

SHAILESH KALWADIA (HUF) ,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BPL-C-(91)(1), UJJAIN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 based solely on third-party information, without granting the assessee any opportunity for cross-examination or verification of such information, which is bad in law. 2. Addition of?18,42,978/-on Account of Alleged Bogus LTCG: The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of?18,42,978/- as unexplained income under

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

reassessment\nproceedings.\"\n[Emphasis supplied]\n12.\nTherefore, Ld. AR prayed that the assessee's application must be\nallowed. Ld. DR for revenue could not controvert Ld. AR's pleadings and the\ndecision quoted. After consideration, we agree that the assessee's\napplication is permissible in terms of Rule 27 as decided by their Lordship of\nHon'ble Madras High Court