NARENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,BURHANPUR vs. PCIT INDORE-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninarendra Kumar Agrawal Pcit (1) 203, Ck Campus Aaykar Bhawan Bahadarpur Road Vs. Indore Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adapa0131B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024

reassessment proceedings then the explanation (2) to section 263 cannot be Page 6 of 27 ITANo.345/Ind/2024 Narendra Kumar Agrawal interpreted in a manner to make inquiries unending. Ld. AR has thus contended that when the AO has examined the issue, applied his mind and reached to a conclusion which is legally possible view then the commissioner cannot be invoke

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

reassessment proceedings firstly, stating that the proceedings are time barred secondly, that no valid approval u/s 148 of the Act has been taken and thirdly, there was no proper reason to believe about escapement of income for initiating proceedings u/s 148 of the Act. Submissions filed by the assesse on these three legal issues reads as under: 5 Smt. Nilima

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

133A on FFSL and many incriminating material was found therein which would constitute incriminating material to implicate assessee. However, we are unable to accede to this plea since this material could not be said to have been found during search on assessee-huf. Secondly, this material has been referred to in the statement of Shri Chandrakant Mane. The Karta

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

133A on FFSL and many incriminating material was found therein which would constitute incriminating material to implicate assessee. However, we are unable to accede to this plea since this material could not be said to have been found during search on assessee-huf. Secondly, this material has been referred to in the statement of Shri Chandrakant Mane. The Karta

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

133A on FFSL and many incriminating material was found therein which would constitute incriminating material to implicate assessee. However, we are unable to accede to this plea since this material could not be said to have been found during search on assessee-huf. Secondly, this material has been referred to in the statement of Shri Chandrakant Mane. The Karta

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

133A on FFSL and many incriminating material was found therein which would constitute incriminating material to implicate assessee. However, we are unable to accede to this plea since this material could not be said to have been found during search on assessee-huf. Secondly, this material has been referred to in the statement of Shri Chandrakant Mane. The Karta

RAKESH KUMAR SOMANI,KHANDWA vs. ITO-1, KHANDWA, KHANDWA

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradrakesh Kumar Somani, Ito-1, 10, Ramganj Road, Khandwa Vs. Khandwa (M.P) (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Azgps3988J Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2024 O R D E R

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the Rakesh Kumar Somani assessee on 27.7.2012 and so far as the relevant appeal is concerned a Saudha Chitthi dated 30.09.2010 was found at his premises which contained the transaction of sale of agriculture land situated at Gram Torni, Tehsil Khandwa for a consideration of Rs.91

HARISH CHANDRA PUROHIT,RATLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1, RATLAM, RATLAM

In the result- the Impugned order is set aside as and by way

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2018-19

reassessment proceedings are wrong and contrary to the provisions of Section 147, Section 148, Section 148A and Section 151 of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. Record of Hearing 3.1 That the hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 19.11.2025 when

KHOJEMA BOHRA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

Appeals are allowed

section 115BBE of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 at the rate of 30%. Penalty proceedings\nu/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of (Addition Rs.23,00,000/-income.”\n2.2 That the Assessee being Aggrieved by the aforesaid\n\"Impugned Assessment Order” prefers the first appeal u/s\nPage 3 of 13\nKhojema Bohra\nITA No. 812 & 814/Ind/2024

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 providing for admissibility of electronic records as evidence have not been followed. The appellant has also placed reliance on certain decisions wherein, on identical facts, similar addition made have been deleted. 4.2.2 After considering the observation made in the assessment order and also taking into consideration the written submissions

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 providing for admissibility of electronic records as evidence have not been followed. The appellant has also placed reliance on certain decisions wherein, on identical facts, similar addition made have been deleted. 4.2.2 After considering the observation made in the assessment order and also taking into consideration the written submissions

SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

PRAYANK JAIN,INDORE vs. ACIT5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

SAPAN SHAH,INDORE vs. ACIT-4(I), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

GOVIND HARINARAYAN AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

MANISH GOVIND AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

DCIT-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MANIDHARI JEWELLERS, BHOPAL

The appeal are allowed

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-3(1), Manidhari Jewellers, बनाम/ Bhopal Room No.202, Vs. Metro Walk Bulding, Bitten Market, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Pan: Abafm6546L) (Revenue) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1064957812(1) dated 17.05.2024 of Ld. CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year