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

ANIL FIROJIYA,BHAKT NAGAR UJJAIN vs. DY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYKAR BHAWAN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Anil Firojiya, Dy. Commissioner Of 6, Bhakt Nagar, Income-Tax, बनाम/ Dashera Maidan, Assessment Unit, Vs. Ujjain New Delhi (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaipf7302A Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2024

reassessing the case under consideration, the AO has added Rs. 10,29,672/- on account of unexplained investment and issued order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 17.02.2023 assessing the total income at Rs. 19,40,652/-/ 6.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision and order of the AO, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

10 will apply only when there is a subsidy or grant or reimbursement. In the present case there was no such subsidy or grant or reimbursement. There was only a waiver of the amounts due for purchase of machinery which cannot fall within the scope of any of the aforesaid expressions used in Expln.10. Even otherwise Sec43(1) is applicable

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

10 will apply only when there is a subsidy or grant or reimbursement. In the present case there was no such subsidy or grant or reimbursement. There was only a waiver of the amounts due for purchase of machinery which cannot fall within the scope of any of the aforesaid expressions used in Expln.10. Even otherwise Sec43(1) is applicable

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

10 will apply only when there is a subsidy or grant or reimbursement. In the present case there was no such subsidy or grant or reimbursement. There was only a waiver of the amounts due for purchase of machinery which cannot fall within the scope of any of the aforesaid expressions used in Expln.10. Even otherwise Sec43(1) is applicable

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

10 will apply only when there is a subsidy or grant or reimbursement. In the present case there was no such subsidy or grant or reimbursement. There was only a waiver of the amounts due for purchase of machinery which cannot fall within the scope of any of the aforesaid expressions used in Expln.10. Even otherwise Sec43(1) is applicable

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

10 will apply only when there is a subsidy or grant or reimbursement. In the present case there was no such subsidy or grant or reimbursement. There was only a waiver of the amounts due for purchase of machinery which cannot fall within the scope of any of the aforesaid expressions used in Expln.10. Even otherwise Sec43(1) is applicable

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

10 will apply only when there is a subsidy or grant or reimbursement. In the present case there was no such subsidy or grant or reimbursement. There was only a waiver of the amounts due for purchase of machinery which cannot fall within the scope of any of the aforesaid expressions used in Expln.10. Even otherwise Sec43(1) is applicable

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

10 will apply only when there is a subsidy or grant or reimbursement. In the present case there was no such subsidy or grant or reimbursement. There was only a waiver of the amounts due for purchase of machinery which cannot fall within the scope of any of the aforesaid expressions used in Expln.10. Even otherwise Sec43(1) is applicable

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

10 will apply only when there is a subsidy or grant or reimbursement. In the present case there was no such subsidy or grant or reimbursement. There was only a waiver of the amounts due for purchase of machinery which cannot fall within the scope of any of the aforesaid expressions used in Expln.10. Even otherwise Sec43(1) is applicable

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

10. On a plain reading of Section 153A of the Act, 1961, it is evident that once search or requisition is made, a mandate is cast upon the AO to issue notice under section 153 of the Act to the person, requiring him to furnish the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years

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

10. Section 292BB of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2008 with effect from\nApril 1, 2008. Section 292BB of the Act provides a deeming fiction. The deeming\nfiction is to the effect that once the assessee has appeared in any proceeding or\ncooperated in any enquiry relating to an assessment or reassessment, it shall be\ndeemed that

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

29. Above decision has been referred to and relied upon in several subsequent decisions. Above proposition being well settled, it is not necessary to refer to all such decisions. 30. We may also approach the question from a slightly different angle. It is not in dispute that once an assessment is reopened by a valid exercise of jurisdiction under Section

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained

SAPAN SHAH,INDORE vs. ACIT-4(I), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition