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

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

reassessment proceedings is a jurisdictional defect and renders the assessment order invalid and void ab initio. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "144", "147", "153(6)", "68", "68(1

SURESH JAT,BADNAWAR vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, DHAR, DHAR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisuresh Jat, Ito, बनाम/ C/O S.V. Agrawal & Associate Dhar. Vs. Dadi Dham, 24-25, Joy Building Colony, Old Aplasia, Indore. (Pan: Anopj2666E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri Anup Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

1)(a). The said provision has simply given power to the CIT(A) to set aside cases to the AO wherein orders have been passed u/s 144. The said section does not make it mandatory to set aside all such cases wherein order has been passed u/s 144 of the Act. This provision has been introduced to mitigate hardships faced

THE DCIT ,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S VATIKA BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit (Central)-I, M/S. Vatika Builders & Bhopal Developers, Vatika Parisar, बनाम/ Near Petrol Pump, Vs. Lalghati, Bhopal

reassessment u/s 147 will be invalid, if no notice u/s 143(2) was issued and will not be save even by section 292BB, even if the assessee participates in the proceedings. The Revenue can avail section 292BB only if notice u/s 143(2) was issued and not when admitted position is that no notice was issued as in the instant

KUNAL VYAS,INDORE vs. ITO 4(1), IND, MAIN BUILDING, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1 to section 148 and no live link between the alleged information and the assessee. The assessee also challenged the addition under section 68 of the Act by contending that no sum was found credited in the books of the assessee and that the Assessing Officer had failed to identify specific entries. With respect to the addition under section

S GANDHI JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18 S. Gandhi Jewellery Pcit-1, Private Limited, Indore C/O Adv. Hitesh Chimnani, बनाम/ Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18, South Tukoganj, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aamcs1613G Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

144 of the Act is not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the Assessing Officer has failed to conduct any inquiry and verification which is patently incorrect. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT erred in treating the order passed

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 proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued several statutory notices under sections 148 and 142(1) of the Act calling upon the assessee to file the return in response to the notice under section 148, explain the nature and source of the bank credits, and furnish details of her business activities and proprietary concerns. Despite repeated opportunities, the assessee largely remained

ARCPL DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

144. Such a request is being supported by (i)\nParas 10 & 11 of NCLT's order, (ii) The Resolution Plan submitted to NCLT,\n(iii) The judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Mishra (supra)\nand (iv) Section 156A of Income-tax Act, 1961. We have already extracted all\nthese in earlier paras of this order. On a careful

ONEEL VERMA,NASHIK vs. ITO-5(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in initiating reassessment proceedings by issuing of notice under section 148 and passing the Assessment Order under section 144

SUNIL,INDORE vs. ITO 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

sections": [ "147", "144", "144B", "68", "271AAC", "272A(1)(d)", "148", "142(1)", "251(1)(a)" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings

AJIT BONDRIYA,LIMASSOL, CYPRUS vs. ITO 2(5), BHOPAL, BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

section 142(1) of the Act enclosing:\na) Copy of Equity transaction statement\nb) Copy of bank statement FY 2015-16\n40\n35\n21-24\n11.\nShow Cause Notice dated 24.11.2023 issued u/s 144 of the Act.\n41-42\n12.\nAcknowledgement of Reply dated 29.11.2023 in response to show\ncause notice dated 24.11.2023 enclosing:\n43-44\nPage

ANISH KUMAR JAISWAL,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DEWAS

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

1)\n(2)\n(3)\n(4)\n(5)\n(6)\nThe appellant\nThe respondent\nCIT\nCIT(A)\nDepartmental Representative\nGuard File\nBy order\nSenior Private Secretary\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nIndore Bench, Indore", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee's income was computed under Section 144 for AY 2010-11. Subsequently, a reassessment

M/S JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-II, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Jayganga Exim India Pvt. Dy. Cit, Limited Central-Ii, [Formerly Known As ‘Jay Jyoti Bhopal (India) Pvt. Ltd.’] बनाम/ 26, Col. Biswas Road, Ground Floor, Vs. West Side Flat, Kolkata (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacj 8822 E Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

section 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2012-13, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds: (i) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action Page 1 of 18 M/s. Jayganga Exim India

JCIT OSD CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S SHAKSHI TOWN SHIP P LTD, GWALIOR

Appeal is dismissed and assessee's cross-\nobjection is allowed

144. However, the assessee filed\nobjection on 11.12.2018 and also Shri Neelesh Sharma, director of assessee-\ncompany and Shri Manoj Goyal, CA appeared on 12.12.2018. The objection\nfiled by assessee was disposed of vide order-sheet entry dated 12.12.2018.\nThereafter, vide letter dated 12.12.2018, the assessee requested the AO to\ntreat its original return filed u/s 139 as a return

BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment proceedings, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued calling upon the assessee to furnish details of purchases, supporting bills, bank statements and evidence regarding the transactions with Shri Sunil Kumar Lalwani. However, the assessee did not comply with these notices and did not furnish any documentary evidence in support of the alleged purchases

BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment proceedings, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued calling upon the assessee to furnish details of purchases, supporting bills, bank statements and evidence regarding the transactions with Shri Sunil Kumar Lalwani. However, the assessee did not comply with these notices and did not furnish any documentary evidence in support of the alleged purchases

BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment proceedings, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued calling upon the assessee to furnish details of purchases, supporting bills, bank statements and evidence regarding the transactions with Shri Sunil Kumar Lalwani. However, the assessee did not comply with these notices and did not furnish any documentary evidence in support of the alleged purchases

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

144 of the Act, the assessee’s total income exigible to tax was computed and assessed at Rs.77,08,140/-. the income as per the return of income was at Rs.62,44,140/-. The income as per the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 148 was also at Rs.62,44,140/-. The addtion/variation in respect of issue