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

37,375/- claimed by assessee in current year vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however, he made some modification. He observed that that the AO was wrong in disallowing full depreciation. He took a view that the disallowance has to be restricted in relation

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

37,375/- claimed by assessee in current year vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however, he made some modification. He observed that that the AO was wrong in disallowing full depreciation. He took a view that the disallowance has to be restricted in relation

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

37,375/- claimed by assessee in current year vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however, he made some modification. He observed that that the AO was wrong in disallowing full depreciation. He took a view that the disallowance has to be restricted in relation

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

37,375/- claimed by assessee in current year vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however, he made some modification. He observed that that the AO was wrong in disallowing full depreciation. He took a view that the disallowance has to be restricted in relation

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

37,375/- claimed by assessee in current year vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however, he made some modification. He observed that that the AO was wrong in disallowing full depreciation. He took a view that the disallowance has to be restricted in relation

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

37,375/- claimed by assessee in current year vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however, he made some modification. He observed that that the AO was wrong in disallowing full depreciation. He took a view that the disallowance has to be restricted in relation

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

37,375/- claimed by assessee in current year vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however, he made some modification. He observed that that the AO was wrong in disallowing full depreciation. He took a view that the disallowance has to be restricted in relation

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

37,375/- claimed by assessee in current year vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however, he made some modification. He observed that that the AO was wrong in disallowing full depreciation. He took a view that the disallowance has to be restricted in relation

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

section 148 is not a substitute for the mandatory requirement of issuance of notice u/s. 153C. In support of his contention, the AR relied upon various judicial pronouncements. 17. The CIT(DR) vehemently argued that in the instant appeals, notices u/s. 148 have rightly been issued and further, the reassessment proceedings in pursuance of such notices have validly been carried

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

section 148 is not a substitute for the mandatory requirement of issuance of notice u/s. 153C. In support of his contention, the AR relied upon various judicial pronouncements. 17. The CIT(DR) vehemently argued that in the instant appeals, notices u/s. 148 have rightly been issued and further, the reassessment proceedings in pursuance of such notices have validly been carried

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

reassess the same. However, if the assessment for any of the assessment years falling within 6 years has attained finally and not pending on the date of search then the same cannot be subjected to tax in the proceedings u/s 153A of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material gathered in the course of search and seizure operation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

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

reassessed on 29.12.2016. We therefore proceed to adjudicate this common issue raised by the revenue on the basis of facts for Assessment Year 2013-14 to which both the parties have agreed. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in development of colony. The assessee purchases lands develops and sells

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

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

reassessed on 29.12.2016. We therefore proceed to adjudicate this common issue raised by the revenue on the basis of facts for Assessment Year 2013-14 to which both the parties have agreed. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in development of colony. The assessee purchases lands develops and sells

PRASAM RAKESH CHOUDHARY,GIRNAR SOCIETY, BAPURAO GALLI, ITWARI, NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

reassessment was passed on the same day and the assessee then paid the tax due as well as the interest thereon. 10. Unfortunately for the assessee, the Assessing Officer thereafter initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. After obtaining a response from the assessee, the Assessing Officer saddled the assessee with penalty

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHOPOAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RASHTRIYA TAKNIKI SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN EVAM ANUNSANDHAN SANSTHAN, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

reassessment was passed on the same day and the assessee then paid the tax due as well as the interest thereon. 10. Unfortunately for the assessee, the Assessing Officer thereafter initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. After obtaining a response from the assessee, the Assessing Officer saddled the assessee with penalty

M/S. SANWARIA AGROILS LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

reassessment can be initiated even if information may be obtained from record of original assessment. 14. The learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that assessment was reopened on the basis of audit objection, which is not permissible in law. In this regard we rely in the case of P. V. S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13, the Apex

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

37,40,250 38 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others Com PL 11 Cherry Tie Up AABCC9327N 1,74,66,000 3,56,88,065 P Ltd 12 Marino Fresh AABCM2781N 2,81,250 4,35,99,164 Food Indu Ltd Dev Lok 13 Marketing P AAACD9682L 12,36,000 Ltd. 14 Surya Shakti AAECS0505K

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

37,40,250 38 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others Com PL 11 Cherry Tie Up AABCC9327N 1,74,66,000 3,56,88,065 P Ltd 12 Marino Fresh AABCM2781N 2,81,250 4,35,99,164 Food Indu Ltd Dev Lok 13 Marketing P AAACD9682L 12,36,000 Ltd. 14 Surya Shakti AAECS0505K