THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 providing for admissibility of electronic records as evidence have not been followed. The appellant has also placed reliance on certain decisions wherein on identical facts, similar addition made have been deleted. The appellant has also challenged the addition made on protective basis on the contention that the said amount

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

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

SMT. MEHA JAIN,JALGAON vs. DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Meha Jain Dcit(Central) 40, Jay Nagar, Jilha Peth Bhopal Vs. Jalgaon Maharashtra (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aeipj 3170 N Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.05.2023

reassessment proceedings pending on the date of search stood abated by virtue of 2nd proviso to section 153A(1). For the sake of completeness section 153A(1) with proviso is quoted as under: Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search

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

reassessment under sub-section (3) of section 92CD;] (c) an order made under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections 91[***] 92[except an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section

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

reassessment under sub-section (3) of section 92CD;] (c) an order made under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections 91[***] 92[except an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section

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

11. As per the provisions of Section 153A, in case of a search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years. However, it is required to be noted that as per the second proviso to Section 153A

SANDHYA SINGH ,BHOPAL vs. ITO (2)(3), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Sandhya Singh Nfac, 121, Rohit Nagar, New Delhi बनाम/ Bawadia Kala, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aycps9215K Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari & Ms. Priyal Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

11. Once it is held that the notice under section 148 was issued on 01.04.2021, the reassessment proceedings are governed by the substituted reassessment regime introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, with effect from that date, as held by the hon'ble Telangana High Court at para no. 17 of the order. Under the said regime, compliance with the mandatory

SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

6,83,498/- under section 271AAB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 deserves to be quashed. 1.4.1] The aforesaid issue is duly covered in the favour of the appellant by the recent judgments of the Hon’ble ITAT, Indore Bench wherein it has been categorically held that the show cause notice which is not in accordance with the mandates

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

6 Smt. Nilima Kothari section or section 153A or section 153C as the case may be, as they stood immediately before the commencement of Finance Act, 2021.” Therefore, notice u/s. 148 cannot be issued at any time (under new provisions), if a notice could not have been issued u/s. 148 of the Act at that time, on account of being

SHRI DIPAK KALANI,INDORE vs. THE JCIT,OSD, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2012-13

6,25,000/- under section 271AAA of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 deserves to be quashed. 1.4.1] The aforesaid issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Gillco Developers and Builders (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Chandigarh as reported in [2017] 85 taxmann.com

SHRI PANKAJ KALANI,INDORE vs. THE JCIT, OSD (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2012-13

6,25,000/- under section 271AAA of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 deserves to be quashed. 1.4.1] The aforesaid issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Gillco Developers and Builders (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Chandigarh as reported in [2017] 85 taxmann.com

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

11 which was 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

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

11 which was 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

BARKHA KHANDELWAL,AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1),INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Barkha Khandelwal Ito -3(1) Aggrieved Assesse Indore 1108, Pinnacle D Dreams, Tower -1 Vs. Near Bhawan Prominent School Pipliyakumar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ajnpk4150B Assessee By Shri Rakesh Gupta, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20 .09.2024

reassessment under section- 153A;] (c ) an order made under section-154 or section- 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections; (d ) an order made under section-163 treating the assessee as the agent of a non-resident

THE DCIT CENTRAL-(1), INDORE vs. M/S AYUSH AJAY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. , INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanii.T(Ss).A. Nos.14 To 16/Ind/2018 (Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10)

reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act.” 11. When there was no evidence found of this particular year the addition