BHARGAVI KESWANI,INDORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- II, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

reassess taking into consideration the other material in\nrespect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning\nthereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can\nbe made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found\nduring the course of search under Section 132 or requisition\nunder Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated\nassessments can be re-opened

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

132(4) is mandatory. The Ld. A.R. further stated that penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary. The provisions of section 271AAB of the Act is pari materia with that of section 158BFA of the Act relating to block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary

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

132(4) is mandatory. The Ld. A.R. further stated that penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary. The provisions of section 271AAB of the Act is pari materia with that of section 158BFA of the Act relating to block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,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

132(4) is mandatory. The Ld. A.R. further stated that penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary. The provisions of section 271AAB of the Act is pari materia with that of section 158BFA of the Act relating to block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary

ANJU JAIN, LR SHRI 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

132(4) is mandatory. The Ld. A.R. further stated that penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary. The provisions of section 271AAB of the Act is pari materia with that of section 158BFA of the Act relating to block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary

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

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

reassessment if any relating to any relevant assessment year or years referred to in this subsection pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be shall abate.” This makes it further abundantly clear that only those assessments which are pending abate. Hence sanguine provisions

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

reassessment if any relating to any relevant assessment year or years referred to in this subsection pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be shall abate.” This makes it further abundantly clear that only those assessments which are pending abate. Hence sanguine provisions

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

reassessment if any relating to any relevant assessment year or years referred to in this subsection pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be shall abate.” This makes it further abundantly clear that only those assessments which are pending abate. Hence sanguine provisions

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

reassessment if any relating to any relevant assessment year or years referred to in this subsection pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be shall abate.” This makes it further abundantly clear that only those assessments which are pending abate. Hence sanguine provisions

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

Appeal is allowed

reassessment proceedings.”\nThus, in the light of judicial rulings cited above, it is clear that the\nAO's action of resorting to re-assessment u/s 147 by-passing the\ncompulsory scrutiny mandated by CBDT Instruction, is invalid and hence\nthe assessment framed by AO u/s 147 cannot be sustained. Therefore, we\nquash the order passed by AO. The assessee succeeds

MOEBIUS TRADE P LTD, MUMBAI vs. THE ADDITIONAL CIT , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimoebius Trade Pvt. Ltd. Acit-Ii Resulting Company After Bhopal Merger Of Exotic & Vs. Speciality Fats Pvt. Ltd. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aahcm 4176D Assessee By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.12.2023

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years [and for the relevant assessment year or years] referred to in this[sub-section] pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate” 9. Since the assessment

NARENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

132/- in place of exemption of Rs.\n3,00,000/- given by AO.\n10. In so far as this ground is concerned, the Ld. AR submitted that the\nceiling limit of Rs. 3,00,000/- (as considered by AO in assessment-order) for\ngiving exemption, was revised to Rs. 25,00,000/- by CBDT through\nNotification No. 31/2023/F.No. 200/3/2023-ITA-1 dated

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

reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar 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 A Yon the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record

ANAND PRAKASH KAMDAR,BHOPAL vs. ACIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2010-11 Anand Prakash Kamdar Acit-1(1) E-4/188, Bhopal बनाम/ Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Afopk0788A Assesseeby S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv.& Gagan Tiwari Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2023

132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A (1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income

NILIMA KOTHARI,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSTT. CENTRE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

132(4) of the Act of any director of Messers Goenka Business and Finance Ltd., if any, recorded by Investigation Wing and report of Investigation Wing, Mumbai, were ever made available to the appellant to verify the conclusion drawn by the department as Penny Stock. There being no evidence about the cash transfer, either at the time of purchase