THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

112,447 PL Texila 8 Commerce P AABCT0569P 76,27,500 51,10,307 Ltd Kajal 9 Merchandise P AABCK4093R 1,25,91,750 3,00,19,461 Ltd 10 Majestic Deal AABCM9098G 37,40,250 38 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others Com PL 11 Cherry Tie Up AABCC9327N

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

112,447 PL Texila 8 Commerce P AABCT0569P 76,27,500 51,10,307 Ltd Kajal 9 Merchandise P AABCK4093R 1,25,91,750 3,00,19,461 Ltd 10 Majestic Deal AABCM9098G 37,40,250 38 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others Com PL 11 Cherry Tie Up AABCC9327N

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

112,447 PL Texila 8 Commerce P AABCT0569P 76,27,500 51,10,307 Ltd Kajal 9 Merchandise P AABCK4093R 1,25,91,750 3,00,19,461 Ltd 10 Majestic Deal AABCM9098G 37,40,250 38 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others Com PL 11 Cherry Tie Up AABCC9327N

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

reassessment by invoking the provisions of section 263 may kindly be dropped. Without prejudice to the above as far as merit of the issues reaised in show-cause notice in question are concerned, we have to submit that the learned Assessing Officer has issued notices u/s 133(6) in loan creditor companies (supra). That after getting the requisite details

THE ACIT, CICLE -4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. NAROTTAMDAS ENTERPRISES PODDAR PLAZA, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

reassessment proceedings. 5.1 The submissions made by the appellant on various dates have been reproduced above. I have gone through the written submissions and observed that the appellant has contested the issue mainly on two accounts which are as under: 1. Such payments are covered by exception in clause (f) of Rule 6DD of Income tax Rules ; . 2. Such payments

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

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 order could not be sustained. 12. Further, we find that it is mandatory that the opinion should be that of assessing officer for forming belief whereas in the instant case, he has relied upon the information received from the DCIT-Central for which he himself was not sure on the question of authenticity as perceived from the word

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 order could not be sustained. 12. Further, we find that it is mandatory that the opinion should be that of assessing officer for forming belief whereas in the instant case, he has relied upon the information received from the DCIT-Central for which he himself was not sure on the question of authenticity as perceived from the word

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 order could not be sustained. 12. Further, we find that it is mandatory that the opinion should be that of assessing officer for forming belief whereas in the instant case, he has relied upon the information received from the DCIT-Central for which he himself was not sure on the question of authenticity as perceived from the word

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

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

reassessment order could not be sustained. 12. Further, we find that it is mandatory that the opinion should be that of assessing officer for forming belief whereas in the instant case, he has relied upon the information received from the DCIT-Central for which he himself was not sure on the question of authenticity as perceived from the word

SHRI M A KHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) It(Ss)A Nos.37 To 42/Ind/2015 & Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2010-11 Late M.A. Khan Acit 3(1) (Through L/H Nazhat Bhopal Parveen Khan) बनाम/ B-90, Housing Board, Vs. Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan:Aewpk 3620 C Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Shri Vijay Bansal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. In so far as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

reassessment framed by the AO u/s 147 r.w. section 143(3) without a valid notice u/s 143(2) is not valid and liable to be quashed as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362. 7. The next objection of the assessee is against the validity of the order passed

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)

112 to 116 of LPS-6. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to explain the sources of payments made in respect of 15 Mohanlal Chugh & others such sale agreement and to show cause as to why an addition of Rs.1,75,00,000/- be not made on account of undisclosed payment from undisclosed

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)

112 to 116 of LPS-6. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to explain the sources of payments made in respect of 15 Mohanlal Chugh & others such sale agreement and to show cause as to why an addition of Rs.1,75,00,000/- be not made on account of undisclosed payment from undisclosed

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

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

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

112 to 116 of LPS-6. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to explain the sources of payments made in respect of 15 Mohanlal Chugh & others such sale agreement and to show cause as to why an addition of Rs.1,75,00,000/- be not made on account of undisclosed payment from undisclosed

SHRI SANJEEV PATNI,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjeev Patni Indore Pan:Aftpp6237Q : Appellant

reassessment proceedings are bad-in-law and deserve to be quashed. 5. Per contra, ld. CIT-DR relied on the orders of the Revenue Authorities and submitted that the Assessing Officer made all possible efforts to serve the notice on the assessee including affixure, therefore, the notice was rightly served on the assessee. Sanjeev Patni 6. We have heard rival