SANTOSH RATHORE,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Section 151 of the Act and are thus, without\njurisdiction and are void-ab initio.\nIn view of the above, we hereby most respectfully submit that the reassessment\nproceedings have been initiated merely to make further enquiry / roving enquiry /\nfishing enquiry without any basis and without any tangible material or information\non the basis of suspicion and incorrect reasons

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 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

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

125/-. The\npenalty u/s 271AAC(1) is being imposed after the prior\napproval of the Competent Authority i.e Range Head as\nper the provisions laid down in Section 274(2) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961. This demand should be paid as\nper the demand notice enclosed.\"\n2.2\nThat the assessee being Aggrieved by the aforesaid\n\"Impugned Penalty Order

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

MANISH 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

MANISH 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

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

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

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

reassessment for six years shall be finalised by the Assessing Officer. It is also held by various Courts that once notice u/ s 153A of the Act issued, then assessment for six years shall be at large both for Assessing Officer and assessee have no warrant of law. It has been also held that in the assessment years where assessments

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

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

reassessment for six years shall be finalised by the Assessing Officer. It is also held by various Courts that once notice u/ s 153A of the Act issued, then assessment for six years shall be at large both for Assessing Officer and assessee have no warrant of law. It has been also held that in the assessment years where assessments

LATE SMT SUSHILA BISARYA, BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, we are Shri Jignesh Lilachand Shah vs

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanilate Smt. Sushila Bisarya Pr. Cit-1 L.H. Pramod Bisarya Bhopal Vs. 125 Malviya Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aewpb 2587 D Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.08.2023

125 Malviya Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AEWPB 2587 D Assessee by Shri Gagan Tiwari, AR Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement 16.08.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the revision order dated 28.02.2020 of Pr. Commissioner

PUMARTH CREDIT CAPITAL LTD,INDORE vs. ACIT 4 (1), INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16 Pumarth Credit Capital Ltd. Acit-4(1), 28/29, Vimla Mahal, Indore 755, Peddar Road, बनाम/ Opp. Jaslok Hospital, Vs. Mumbai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aabcp8823E Assessee By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari Adv. Revenue By Shri Sanjiv Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.03.2025

section 148 by the AO is illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction and barred by time limitation, hence, the reassessment order dated 27/03/2022 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre is also illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 4. That there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for his assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI NEERAJ MANDLOI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

reassessment could have be done only u/s 153C and not u/s 147 and thus the impugned assessment order was liable to be quashed as being without Shri Neeraj Mandloi ITA No.680/Ind/2020 & C.O.No.04/Ind/2020 jurisdiction. 3.That the Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that section 153 C overrides section 147/148 and thus proceedings which are initiated pursuant to document seized under

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

125 & 126/Nag/2021 - Chandra Suresh Kothari v. Dy. CIT, Central Circle 2(2) - Nagpur ITAT 14. Ld. AR prayed that the case of assessee is squarely covered on facts and in law by the above decisions. Therefore, in the light of those decisions, the AO is wrong in imposing penalty and the CIT(A) is also wrong in upholding

ANJU JAIN, LR SUSHIL JAIN,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

125 & 126/Nag/2021 - Chandra Suresh Kothari v. Dy. CIT, Central Circle 2(2) - Nagpur ITAT 14. Ld. AR prayed that the case of assessee is squarely covered on facts and in law by the above decisions. Therefore, in the light of those decisions, the AO is wrong in imposing penalty and the CIT(A) is also wrong in upholding