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

reassessment proceedings. We are unable to accept that is the true position in law. In our opinion the decision of the Andra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bavuri V. Narasimhan, (1) relied on by the assessee was not correctly decided. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow these appeals, vacate the answers given by the High

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

PARAMETRIC TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S.Parametric Trading A.C.I.T., Pvt.Ltd., Circle 4(1), 205, Sujata Chambers, 2Nd Indore. Floor, Abhichand Gandhi Vs. Marg,Off Katha Bazar Masjid (W), Mumbai (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aagca4207J Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Shailesh Parmar, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2023

reassessment is non-supply of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening of assessment. There is no doubt that the Assessing Officer recorded the reasons on 31/01/2007 for reopening of the assessment and Page 19 of 25 Prametric Trading Co.P.Ltd.,Indore 20 A.Y.2011-12 accordingly issued a notice under section 148. The regions as recorded by the Assessing Officer

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

GURVINDER KAUR BHATIA ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

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

120; (b) "record" shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; HarleenKaur Bhatia &GurvinderKaur Bhatia ITA Nos.150 & 151 /Ind/19 (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been

HARLEEN KAUR BHATIA,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

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

120; (b) "record" shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; HarleenKaur Bhatia &GurvinderKaur Bhatia ITA Nos.150 & 151 /Ind/19 (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been

M/S. SANEE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT , BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Sanee Infrastructure Pr.Cit-2, Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Bhopal D-1, Machna Colony, 6 No Bus Stop, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aagcs8307M Appellant By Shri Arun Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit Date Of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01.06.2020 O R D E R

120; (b) "record" shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the subject matter of any appeal filed

THE ACIT CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. SMT MEENAKSHI SARAIYA, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue and CO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central)- Smt. Meenakshi Saraiya Bhopal E-13/111, Arera Colony Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Anrps3407K Revenue By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Assessee By Shri Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr

120 of Indian Contract Act 1872. He has further submitted that this MOU gives the details of payment in future but no material was found during the search and no fact was detected even in the statements recorded during the search and seizure action as well as during the assessment proceedings that the alleged payments as mentioned

M/S SWADESH DEVLOPERS AND BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

120 DTR (Bom) 89 and has observed that u/s 153A of the Act which enables carrying out a search or exercise of a power of requisition, assessment in furtherance thereof is contemplated. There is a mandatory issue of notice u/s 153(1A) of the Act and assess and reassess the total income of 6 assessment years immediately preceding the assessment

SHRI RAJEEV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

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

120 45,18,651 74,125 44,44,526 2009-10 21,93,050 51,70,682 74,300 37,

SMT. MANJU SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

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

120 45,18,651 74,125 44,44,526 2009-10 21,93,050 51,70,682 74,300 37,

SMT ANJANA SINHA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

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

120 45,18,651 74,125 44,44,526 2009-10 21,93,050 51,70,682 74,300 37,

SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

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

120 45,18,651 74,125 44,44,526 2009-10 21,93,050 51,70,682 74,300 37,

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

PUSHPENDRA SINGH CHOUHAN,SEHORE vs. ITO-SEHORE, SEHORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Pushpendra Singh Ito Chouhan, Sehore C/O Adv.Hitesh Chimnani, Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18 South Tukoganj, Near Hotel Crown Palace, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cggps1953Q Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ms. Komal Wadhwani & Komal Kataria, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R

Section 249(4) of the Act will not apply as there is no question of payment of advance tax in reassessment proceedings even though assessee did not file return of income. The Ld. AR has then relied upon the decision of the Raipur Bench of this Tribunal dated 10.4.2024 in case of Page 3 of 12 ITANo.122/Ind/2024 Pushpendra Singh Chouhan

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