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

reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act. The Cross Objections of the assessee stand disposed off being allowed. Revenue’s Appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18, 2020- 21 and 2018-19: 11. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and submitted that section 80IB(11A) provides for deduction in the case of an undertaking deriving profit from

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

reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act. The Cross Objections of the assessee stand disposed off being allowed. Revenue’s Appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18, 2020- 21 and 2018-19: 11. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and submitted that section 80IB(11A) provides for deduction in the case of an undertaking deriving profit from

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

reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act. The Cross Objections of the assessee stand disposed off being allowed. Revenue’s Appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18, 2020- 21 and 2018-19: 11. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and submitted that section 80IB(11A) provides for deduction in the case of an undertaking deriving profit from

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

reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act. The Cross Objections of the assessee stand disposed off being allowed. Revenue’s Appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18, 2020- 21 and 2018-19: 11. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and submitted that section 80IB(11A) provides for deduction in the case of an undertaking deriving profit from

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

reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act. The Cross Objections of the assessee stand disposed off being allowed. Revenue’s Appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18, 2020- 21 and 2018-19: 11. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and submitted that section 80IB(11A) provides for deduction in the case of an undertaking deriving profit from

JAYANTILAL SANGHVI,INDORE vs. ACIT 4(1), INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Jayantilal Sanghvi, Acit, 8/10, Warehouse Road, 4(1), बनाम/ Patel Bridge, Indore. Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Agtps5825Q Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, C.A. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2024

section 147 of the Act. Under the circumstances, on the aforesaid ground alone, the impugned reassessment proceedings deserve to be quashed and set aside. 5.5 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present petition succeeds.” [Emphasis supplied] Page 14 of 28 Jayantilal Sanghvi, Indore vs. ACIT,4(1), Indore ITA No. 539/Ind/2023

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

reassessed on 29.12.2016. We therefore proceed to adjudicate this common issue raised by the revenue on the basis of facts for Assessment Year 2013-14 to which both the parties have agreed. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in development of colony. The assessee purchases lands develops and sells

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

reassessed on 29.12.2016. We therefore proceed to adjudicate this common issue raised by the revenue on the basis of facts for Assessment Year 2013-14 to which both the parties have agreed. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in development of colony. The assessee purchases lands develops and sells

M/S SHRI GURMUKHDAS CONTRACTORS P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-CENRRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in I

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

131(1A) of the Act of the assessee or any other person/appraisal report of the Investigation Wing of the Department/ materials on hand with the Department at the time of initiation of search or material evidences gathered were placed for its verification and the same were duly verified and/or examined by him as mandated under Section 153D

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

INDIRA BAI JINDAL,KHARGONE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment provisions, the Ld. CIT(A) held that since the notice under section 148 was issued prior to 01.04.2021, the law as applicable on the date of issuance of notice was correctly followed. Accordingly, Grounds of Appeal Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 were dismissed. 4.1 Grounds of Appeal Nos. 4 and 5 related to alleged violation of principles

M/S JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-II, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Jayganga Exim India Pvt. Dy. Cit, Limited Central-Ii, [Formerly Known As ‘Jay Jyoti Bhopal (India) Pvt. Ltd.’] बनाम/ 26, Col. Biswas Road, Ground Floor, Vs. West Side Flat, Kolkata (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacj 8822 E Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

reassessment order is contrary to law and facts and without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and without confronting the entire adverse material to the assessee and by recording incorrect facts and findings and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. (x) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

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

reassessment order in the name of dead person. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ITO vs. Durlabhbhai Kanubhai Rajpara (supra) has dismissed the SLP filed by the revenue against the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court reported in 114 taxmann.com 482 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has considered this issue in para

BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) were issued to Shri Lalwani, who in his statement admitted that his concern was engaged in providing accommodation entries and that the amounts deposited in his bank accounts were mainly on account of issuing bogus purchase bills to various beneficiaries, which were later withdrawn in cash

BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) were issued to Shri Lalwani, who in his statement admitted that his concern was engaged in providing accommodation entries and that the amounts deposited in his bank accounts were mainly on account of issuing bogus purchase bills to various beneficiaries, which were later withdrawn in cash

BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) were issued to Shri Lalwani, who in his statement admitted that his concern was engaged in providing accommodation entries and that the amounts deposited in his bank accounts were mainly on account of issuing bogus purchase bills to various beneficiaries, which were later withdrawn in cash

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

131-Addition cannot be made. 40 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others Thus, appellant has furnished all the required details in order to prove identity of investor, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the investor. 4.2.2 Therefore, in view of the above discussion and keeping in view facts of the case, the documentary evidences filed

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

131-Addition cannot be made. 40 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others Thus, appellant has furnished all the required details in order to prove identity of investor, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the investor. 4.2.2 Therefore, in view of the above discussion and keeping in view facts of the case, the documentary evidences filed