SUNIL SAHU,RAIPUR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

5. Under this facts and circumstances of the identical case in the light of ratio laid down in the judicial different pronouncements (supra), we hereby quash the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147/148 of the Act being invalid for the A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2012-13. Since we have quashed the reassessment proceedings for the A.Ys

THE ACIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL vs. SHRI SUNIL SAHU , RAIPUR

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

5. Under this facts and circumstances of the identical case in the light of ratio laid down in the judicial different pronouncements (supra), we hereby quash the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147/148 of the Act being invalid for the A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2012-13. Since we have quashed the reassessment proceedings for the A.Ys

SHRI NARAYAN DAS TOLANI,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 13.03.2007, in which the assessee surrendered undisclosed income stating that the assessee would declare the income surrendered by him, but assessee retracted and Page 3 of 16 Shri Narayan Das Tolani vs. ITO, 3(1), Bhopal I.T.A.No. 834/Ind/2016 A.Y.2007-08 did not disclose

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

SHRI MANUEL MEDA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, Cross Objection by the assessee in CO

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradit(Ss)A No.89/Ind/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit 1(1) M/S. L.N. Gupta Mathur Vaishya बनाम/ Charitable Trust Bhopal Vs. E-1/55, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aaatl4820E

5. From perusal of the above grounds we find that the assessee’s Cross Objection in CO No.31/Ind/2016 and in assessee’s appeal in IT(SS)A Nos.195 & 196/Ind/2016 common issue has been raised contending that the assessment proceedings carried out u/s 153C of the Act are bad in law and are without jurisdiction since no proper satisfaction was recorded

ACIT (CENTRAL UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S ARIHANT FUTURE AND COMMODITIES LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

section 14A of Rs. 5,01,070/- and made remark for the same that this should be disallowed; and that, the assessee has filed and relied upon the said audit report, thus, clearly justifying the nature of addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-UJJAIN, INDORE vs. M/S ARIHANT CAPITALS MARKETS LTD , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

section 14A of Rs. 5,01,070/- and made remark for the same that this should be disallowed; and that, the assessee has filed and relied upon the said audit report, thus, clearly justifying the nature of addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances

THE ACIT, CENTRAL - UJJAIN, INDORE vs. M/S ARIHANT FUTURE & COMMADITIES LTD , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

section 14A of Rs. 5,01,070/- and made remark for the same that this should be disallowed; and that, the assessee has filed and relied upon the said audit report, thus, clearly justifying the nature of addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

5 – year-end investment in shares for Rs.93.44 Lacs and another investment of Rs.103.50 Lacs in share warrants. The perusal of the Balance Sheet would show that a substantial portion of assessee’s capital has been ploughed back by way of investments. On the basis of all these facts, it could very well be concluded that the impugned transactions

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

5 – year-end investment in shares for Rs.93.44 Lacs and another investment of Rs.103.50 Lacs in share warrants. The perusal of the Balance Sheet would show that a substantial portion of assessee’s capital has been ploughed back by way of investments. On the basis of all these facts, it could very well be concluded that the impugned transactions

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

5 – year-end investment in shares for Rs.93.44 Lacs and another investment of Rs.103.50 Lacs in share warrants. The perusal of the Balance Sheet would show that a substantial portion of assessee’s capital has been ploughed back by way of investments. On the basis of all these facts, it could very well be concluded that the impugned transactions

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

5 – year-end investment in shares for Rs.93.44 Lacs and another investment of Rs.103.50 Lacs in share warrants. The perusal of the Balance Sheet would show that a substantial portion of assessee’s capital has been ploughed back by way of investments. On the basis of all these facts, it could very well be concluded that the impugned transactions

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

AJIT KUMAR JAIN,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2006-07

133A was conducted on the premises of Sarvja Jankalyan Parmarthik Nyas on 09.08.2005. During the course of such proceedings, some documents/loose papers were found and impounded from briefcase of Shri Ram Vilas Vijayvarigya. On perusal of the loose papers, it was found that these documents record amounts received by People’s College of Medical Science and Research Centre in lieu

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 (1), INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. (M.P), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the revenue stands

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14 Dcit-2(1), M/S. Dthri Health Care Indore Vs. Pvt. Ltd (M.P), Pu-4, Scheme No.54, Near A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aabcd4095N Revenue By Shri R.P. Mourya, Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri Sumit Neema, Sr.Adv & Gagan Tiwari, Adv Date Of Hearing 17.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2019 O R D E R

section 147/148. During the course of reassessment proceedings Learned Assessing Officer (In short ‘Ld. A.O’) observed that as against the admitted undisclosed income of Rs.4,41,88,232/- the assessee has only declared income of Rs.2,11,29,807/- and the reasons for less disclosure was sought from the assessee. It was submitted before the Ld. Assessing Officer that there

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

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

133A was carried out at the premises and Buidling Projects run by the assessee-company. Subsequently, a search u/s. 132 was also IT(SS)A No.83,84,86,87,90,91,109,110 & ITA, No.922 &923/Ind/2019 AG8 Ventures Ltd. carried on 29-31 January 2014 at the business place of assessee company and residential premises of Directors. Various books