INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

14 of 28\nDivine Infracreation and Trading Private Limited\nITA No. 272/Ind/2024 – AY 2010-11\nexplanations of the assessee, he granted exemption under section 11 of the\nAct after having observed that there was no finding of the Assessing Officer of\nany violation of the nature specified in the provisions of section 13 of the Act.\n6. Against the grant

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

reassessment under sub-section (3) of section 92CD;] (c) an order made under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections 91[***] 92[except an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

reassessment under sub-section (3) of section 92CD;] (c) an order made under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections 91[***] 92[except an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section

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

Appeals are allowed

14.\nIn view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded\nas under:\ni)\nthat in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section\n132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under\nsection 153A;\nii)\nall pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated;\niii)\nin case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case

BARKHA KHANDELWAL,AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1),INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Barkha Khandelwal Ito -3(1) Aggrieved Assesse Indore 1108, Pinnacle D Dreams, Tower -1 Vs. Near Bhawan Prominent School Pipliyakumar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ajnpk4150B Assessee By Shri Rakesh Gupta, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20 .09.2024

reassessment order dated 15.12.2019 is bad in Page 2 of 13 ITANo.85/Ind/2024 Barkha Khandelwal law inter alia for the reason that DIN number was not mentioned on the same and mandatory requirement of CBDT circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 have not been complied with as is must as held in the judgements of CIT (International Taxation) vs. Brandix Mauritius Holdings

AGROH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P LTD,MHOW vs. PR CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Agroh Infrastructure Pr. Cit (Central) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Aqua Point, A.B.Road, Vs. Umaria, Mhow, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaeca 2752 L Assessee By Shri Manish Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2023

reassessment order. Page 13 of 16 Agroh Infrstructure Developers P. Ltd. Page 14 of 16 3(xv) We are unable to agree. We are unable to agree as Paragraph 15 of the Alagendran Finance case makes it clear that when a notice under Section

SHRI PREMNARAYAN,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

section 2(14)(iii) of the Act even when the said issue was duly examined by the Assessing Officer at the time of reassessment

SMT. SHARDA,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

section 2(14)(iii) of the Act even when the said issue was duly examined by the Assessing Officer at the time of reassessment

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

14. In view of Section 150(2) of the Act, the provisions of sub section (1) of Section 150 of the Act is not applicable in respect of the assessment year in which the assessment, reassessment

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

Appeal is allowed

14 of 33\nSanjeev Agrawal\nITA No. 38/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18\ncourse of survey cannot be used to reopen the assessment, unless it is\nsupported by tangible material. The materials collected and the statement\nobtained under Section 133A of the Act would not automatically bind upon the\nassessee. In the assessee's case as per the statement the director

SANDHYA SINGH ,BHOPAL vs. ITO (2)(3), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Sandhya Singh Nfac, 121, Rohit Nagar, New Delhi बनाम/ Bawadia Kala, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aycps9215K Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari & Ms. Priyal Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

reassessment scheme by amending sections 147 to 151 of the Act by inserting a new section 148A of the Act with effect from 1-4-2021. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Ashish Agarwal reported in 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC) dated 4-5-2022 held that any notice served post

SANDHYA SINGH,ROHIT NAGAR, BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(3) BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment notice was invalid in law in view of the amended provisions applicable from 01.04.2021, and alleged violation of principles of natural justice on the ground that the assessment was completed under section 144 without properly considering her submissions. On merits, the assessee disputed the addition of ₹3,62,68,600/- under section 69A, reiterating that one of the bank

THE DCIT CENTRAL-(1), INDORE vs. M/S AYUSH AJAY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. , INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanii.T(Ss).A. Nos.14 To 16/Ind/2018 (Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10)

reassess the same. Since the assessment under section 153A of the Act is linked with search and requisition under sections 132 and 132A of the Act, it is evident that the object of the sections is to bring to tax the undisclosed income which is found during the coerce of or pursuant to the search or requisition However , instead

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

14 as under (324 ITR 48): “10 In dealing with the merits of the rival contentions, it must at the be noted that during the course of the proceedings under section 143(3), the Assessing Officer was duly apprised of the circumstance that the petitioner was acting as an agent for the collection of subscriptions and procuring advertisements

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

14 as under (324 ITR 48): “10 In dealing with the merits of the rival contentions, it must at the be noted that during the course of the proceedings under section 143(3), the Assessing Officer was duly apprised of the circumstance that the petitioner was acting as an agent for the collection of subscriptions and procuring advertisements

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

14 as under (324 ITR 48): “10 In dealing with the merits of the rival contentions, it must at the be noted that during the course of the proceedings under section 143(3), the Assessing Officer was duly apprised of the circumstance that the petitioner was acting as an agent for the collection of subscriptions and procuring advertisements

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

14 as under (324 ITR 48): “10 In dealing with the merits of the rival contentions, it must at the be noted that during the course of the proceedings under section 143(3), the Assessing Officer was duly apprised of the circumstance that the petitioner was acting as an agent for the collection of subscriptions and procuring advertisements

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

14 as under (324 ITR 48): “10 In dealing with the merits of the rival contentions, it must at the be noted that during the course of the proceedings under section 143(3), the Assessing Officer was duly apprised of the circumstance that the petitioner was acting as an agent for the collection of subscriptions and procuring advertisements