HARLEEN KAUR BHATIA,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

144, Pipliyarao, Near Vs. Indore Vishnupuri Colony, A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No.AMGPB3531P Assessment Years: 2015-16 Smt. Gurvinder Kaur Bhatia Pr.CIT-2 13-14, Aditya Nagar, Near Vs. Indore Vishnupuri Colony, A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No.AGJPB0037B Assessee by S/Shri Sumit Nema & Shri GaganTiwari, ARs Revenue by Shri S.S. Mantry, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 15.10.2019 Date

GURVINDER KAUR BHATIA ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

144, Pipliyarao, Near Vs. Indore Vishnupuri Colony, A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No.AMGPB3531P Assessment Years: 2015-16 Smt. Gurvinder Kaur Bhatia Pr.CIT-2 13-14, Aditya Nagar, Near Vs. Indore Vishnupuri Colony, A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No.AGJPB0037B Assessee by S/Shri Sumit Nema & Shri GaganTiwari, ARs Revenue by Shri S.S. Mantry, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 15.10.2019 Date

MANJU YADAV,INDORE vs. ITO-1(2), INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment proceedings against the assessee and the assessment was completed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act. 1961 (“the Act”). In the course of such assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 142(1

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

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

1) of section 200A, where the assessee or the deductor objects] to the making of adjustments, or any order of assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 79[[except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel 80[***] 81[or an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA]]] or section 144

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

1) of section 200A, where the assessee or the deductor objects] to the making of adjustments, or any order of assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 79[[except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel 80[***] 81[or an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA]]] or section 144

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

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

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD.,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE

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

1) of section 245D is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (2) of that section; or shall be excluded. Provided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid period, the period of limitation referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of this sub-section available to the Assessing Officer for making an order

PARTH KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (I), INDORE , INDORE

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

1) of section 245D is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (2) of that section; or shall be excluded. Provided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid period, the period of limitation referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of this sub-section available to the Assessing Officer for making an order

DYPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. , INDORE

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

1) of section 245D is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (2) of that section; or shall be excluded. Provided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid period, the period of limitation referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of this sub-section available to the Assessing Officer for making an order

MANOJ KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (1), INDORE, INDORE

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

1) of section 245D is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (2) of that section; or shall be excluded. Provided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid period, the period of limitation referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of this sub-section available to the Assessing Officer for making an order

SHRIMATI SHARDA KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (I), INDORE, INDORE

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

1) of section 245D is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (2) of that section; or shall be excluded. Provided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid period, the period of limitation referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of this sub-section available to the Assessing Officer for making an order

SUMATI KUMAR KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE

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

1) of section 245D is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (2) of that section; or shall be excluded. Provided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid period, the period of limitation referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of this sub-section available to the Assessing Officer for making an order