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

133(6) were issued by the AO to the brokers who duly complied with the same and represented their matters before the then AO. It is further submitted by the appellant that the entire discussion made by the AO in the reassessment order is with respect to brokers namely S. N. Commodities, Shubhlaxmi Commodities, Subhlamxi Traders and Sairam Commodities

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

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AVILABLE FINANCE LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

6. 16. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the submissions made by both the parties. The common issue raised in Ground No. 1 &2 in ITA No.651/Ind/19, Ground No. 2 & 3 of ITA No.331/Ind/18 and Ground No.2 of ITA No.895/Ind/19 are relating to unexplained cash credit addition

DY. CIT -1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

6. 16. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the submissions made by both the parties. The common issue raised in Ground No. 1 &2 in ITA No.651/Ind/19, Ground No. 2 & 3 of ITA No.331/Ind/18 and Ground No.2 of ITA No.895/Ind/19 are relating to unexplained cash credit addition

M/S AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD.,INDORE vs. THEDCIT 1(1) , INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

6. 16. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the submissions made by both the parties. The common issue raised in Ground No. 1 &2 in ITA No.651/Ind/19, Ground No. 2 & 3 of ITA No.331/Ind/18 and Ground No.2 of ITA No.895/Ind/19 are relating to unexplained cash credit addition

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

133(6) of the Act however, Ld AO neither made any independent enquiry subsequent to their filing of Affidavits retracting the statements nor Ld.AO provided any opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee. 13.4 Learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that during the course of the assessment proceedings, it was submitted before the AO that in respect

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

133(6) of the Act however, Ld AO neither made any independent enquiry subsequent to their filing of Affidavits retracting the statements nor Ld.AO provided any opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee. 13.4 Learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that during the course of the assessment proceedings, it was submitted before the AO that in respect

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

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

reassess the same. However, if the assessment for any of the assessment years falling within 6 years has attained finally and not pending on the date of search then the same cannot be subjected to tax in the proceedings u/s 153A of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material gathered in the course of search and seizure operation

JASTEJ GOROWARA,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2011–12. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The reopening was based on information received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee had purchased an immovable property worth ₹2,40,40,000/- through open auction from UCO Bank and that part

JASTEJ GOROWARA,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2011–12. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The reopening was based on information received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee had purchased an immovable property worth ₹2,40,40,000/- through open auction from UCO Bank and that part

ADIM JATI SEVA SAHAKARI S ANSTHA BELKUND,BELKUND, BETUL vs. ITO, BETUL, BETUL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

133/-, leading to reassessment proceedings under section 147. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-prosecution.", "held": "The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the merits, contrary to Section 250(6

MS. SANGEETA CHOPRA,UJJAIN vs. THE PR. CIT. UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

133(6) dated 24.04.2012 on the basis of AIR Information was served upon the assessee whereupon on 23.09.2016 the return of income was filed. The assessee filed the following details and/or working in regard to the capital gain in response to the notice under Section 147 of the Act upon filing her return of income showing total income

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

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

SMT. SUDHA MODI,BHOPAL vs. PCIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanivs. Smt. Sudha Modi, The Pcit-1 Nishant Colony 74 Bhopal Bunglows, Bhopal (M.P.) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahwpm1842P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Gagan Tiwari, Advocate Assessee By : Shri P. K. Mishra, Cit.D.R. 21.12.2022 & 21.03.2023 Date Of Hearing 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.02.2022 Passed By The Pcit-1, Bhopal (M.P.) (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit)’) Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Order Dated 29.11.2019 Passed By The Dcit/Acit-5(1), Bhopal (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2 Smt. Sudha Modi Vs. Pcit (A.Y. 2017-18) 2. We Have Heard The Rival Submissions Made By The Respective Parties & We Have Also Perused The Relevant Materials Available On Record.

Section 133(6) of the Act was duly issued to the Union Bank of India on 02.05.2019 requiring the bank statement of the reported bank account in SFT. It was found from the said bank documents that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.11,08,000/- during demonetization. Specific queries were issued on 18.01.2019 and 03.04.2019 requiring the assessee to furnish

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