MANOJ KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (1), INDORE, INDORE

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

125 (MP). (iii)Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd (2012) 19 taxmann.com 26 (Delhi). (iv) Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in ITA No.251/2008 order dated 15.7.2008 in the case of CIT Vs Laul Transport Corporation. (v) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Orissa Corpn

DYPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. , INDORE

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

125 (MP). (iii)Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd (2012) 19 taxmann.com 26 (Delhi). (iv) Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in ITA No.251/2008 order dated 15.7.2008 in the case of CIT Vs Laul Transport Corporation. (v) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Orissa Corpn

M/S NISHANT FINANCE PVT.LTD,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL (I), INDORE, INDORE

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

125 (MP). (iii)Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd (2012) 19 taxmann.com 26 (Delhi). (iv) Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in ITA No.251/2008 order dated 15.7.2008 in the case of CIT Vs Laul Transport Corporation. (v) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Orissa Corpn

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD.,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE

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

125 (MP). (iii)Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd (2012) 19 taxmann.com 26 (Delhi). (iv) Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in ITA No.251/2008 order dated 15.7.2008 in the case of CIT Vs Laul Transport Corporation. (v) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Orissa Corpn

PARTH KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (I), INDORE , INDORE

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

125 (MP). (iii)Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd (2012) 19 taxmann.com 26 (Delhi). (iv) Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in ITA No.251/2008 order dated 15.7.2008 in the case of CIT Vs Laul Transport Corporation. (v) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Orissa Corpn

SHRIMATI SHARDA KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (I), INDORE, INDORE

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

125 (MP). (iii)Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd (2012) 19 taxmann.com 26 (Delhi). (iv) Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in ITA No.251/2008 order dated 15.7.2008 in the case of CIT Vs Laul Transport Corporation. (v) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Orissa Corpn

SUMATI KUMAR KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE

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

125 (MP). (iii)Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd (2012) 19 taxmann.com 26 (Delhi). (iv) Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in ITA No.251/2008 order dated 15.7.2008 in the case of CIT Vs Laul Transport Corporation. (v) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Orissa Corpn

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

125-126 Power Limited for the Assessment Year 2011-12 Copy of the Audited financial statement of M/s SKS Inpat and Power Limited for the year ended 31st March 6.5 127-142 2011 Copy of ledger account of the respondent in the books 6.6 of accounts of M/s SKS Inpat and Power Limited for the 143 Financial Year

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

125-126 Power Limited for the Assessment Year 2011-12 Copy of the Audited financial statement of M/s SKS Inpat and Power Limited for the year ended 31st March 6.5 127-142 2011 Copy of ledger account of the respondent in the books 6.6 of accounts of M/s SKS Inpat and Power Limited for the 143 Financial Year

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

125-126 Power Limited for the Assessment Year 2011-12 Copy of the Audited financial statement of M/s SKS Inpat and Power Limited for the year ended 31st March 6.5 127-142 2011 Copy of ledger account of the respondent in the books 6.6 of accounts of M/s SKS Inpat and Power Limited for the 143 Financial Year

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

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 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

RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, SEHORE, SEHORE

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

125/-. The penalty u/s 271AAC(1) is being imposed after the prior approval of the Competent Authority i.e Range Head as per the provisions laid down in Section 274(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This demand should be paid as per the demand notice enclosed." 2.2 That the assessee being Aggrieved by the aforesaid "Impugned Penalty Order” prefers

SMT MANORAMA SINGHAL,INDORE vs. ITO-3(2), INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Years: 2013-14

reassessment under Section 147 of the Act which is prayed to be quashed and held as unwarranted, illegal and bad- in law. 2.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the act of AO in assuming jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Act and failed to appreciate that the reasons

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

125 ITR 713) and also in M/s Andaman Timber Industries V/s CCE (CA No.4228 of 2006 dated 02/09/2015) wherein it has been held that not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the adjudicating authority though the statement of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order, is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

125 ITR 713) and also in M/s Andaman Timber Industries V/s CCE (CA No.4228 of 2006 dated 02/09/2015) wherein it has been held that not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the adjudicating authority though the statement of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order, is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity