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

b) & 2(c) for A.Y. 2008-09 & A.Y. 2009- 10 – Issuance of Notice u/s. 148 of the Act 12. The brief facts relating to the grounds are that Search and Seizure operations u/s. 132 of the Act, were carried out on group of asseessee(s) namely ‘Satellite Group’ on 19-11-2019 and during the course of search

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

b) & 2(c) for A.Y. 2008-09 & A.Y. 2009- 10 – Issuance of Notice u/s. 148 of the Act 12. The brief facts relating to the grounds are that Search and Seizure operations u/s. 132 of the Act, were carried out on group of asseessee(s) namely ‘Satellite Group’ on 19-11-2019 and during the course of search

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

b) It appears that the proceedings have been initiated on the basis of audit objection raised regarding ‘irregular deduction under section 80IB (11A)’ It is on the basis of this information that the AO appears to have formed his belief that income to the extent of Rs.6,47,46,882/- has escaped assessment in the AY 2012-13 within

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

b) It appears that the proceedings have been initiated on the basis of audit objection raised regarding ‘irregular deduction under section 80IB (11A)’ It is on the basis of this information that the AO appears to have formed his belief that income to the extent of Rs.6,47,46,882/- has escaped assessment in the AY 2012-13 within

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

b) It appears that the proceedings have been initiated on the basis of audit objection raised regarding ‘irregular deduction under section 80IB (11A)’ It is on the basis of this information that the AO appears to have formed his belief that income to the extent of Rs.6,47,46,882/- has escaped assessment in the AY 2012-13 within

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

b) It appears that the proceedings have been initiated on the basis of audit objection raised regarding ‘irregular deduction under section 80IB (11A)’ It is on the basis of this information that the AO appears to have formed his belief that income to the extent of Rs.6,47,46,882/- has escaped assessment in the AY 2012-13 within

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

b) It appears that the proceedings have been initiated on the basis of audit objection raised regarding ‘irregular deduction under section 80IB (11A)’ It is on the basis of this information that the AO appears to have formed his belief that income to the extent of Rs.6,47,46,882/- has escaped assessment in the AY 2012-13 within

SANJEEV AGRAWAL ,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

b) The CBDT guidelines for compulsory scrutiny, while mandatory for\nadministrative purposes, do not override the provisions of section 147 of the\nAct.\n(c) The AO, having tangible material from the survey under section 133A of the\nAct, rightly formed "reason to believe" and initiated reassessment proceedings\nunder section 147 of the Act to bring the escaped income

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

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 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

reassessment order. The only objection of the AO for making the impugned disallowance was non compliance of section 194C(7) of the Act. The appellant has submitted that section 194C(7) of the Act prescribes merely a procedural requirement requiring mechanical compliance, non compliance of which cannot trigger disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The disallowance

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

reassessment order. The only objection of the AO for making the impugned disallowance was non compliance of section 194C(7) of the Act. The appellant has submitted that section 194C(7) of the Act prescribes merely a procedural requirement requiring mechanical compliance, non compliance of which cannot trigger disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The disallowance

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -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

reassessment order. The only objection of the AO for making the impugned disallowance was non compliance of section 194C(7) of the Act. The appellant has submitted that section 194C(7) of the Act prescribes merely a procedural requirement requiring mechanical compliance, non compliance of which cannot trigger disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The disallowance

S GANDHI JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18 S. Gandhi Jewellery Pcit-1, Private Limited, Indore C/O Adv. Hitesh Chimnani, बनाम/ Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18, South Tukoganj, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aamcs1613G Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 85,87,725/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 312/Ind/2018 – AY 2012-13: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 85,87,725/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 312/Ind/2018 – AY 2012-13: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 85,87,725/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 312/Ind/2018 – AY 2012-13: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances