JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained

M/S CUMMINS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DEWAS vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicummins Technologies Acit Circle -1(1) India Pvt. Ltd. Ujjain Industrial Area No.2 A.B. Vs. Road Industrial Area Dewas (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabct2018B Assessee By Shri Ketan K. Ved. Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2023

reassessment order. Thus, he has submitted that the reopening is not valid and liable to be quashed. The Ld. AR has submitted that though the writ petition filed by the assesse challenging the validity of the reopening of the assessment was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court however, it was specifically observed while passing the order that anything observed

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

145(3) of the Act. 1(c). That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming an addition to the extent of Rs.38,47,800/- out of the total addition of Rs.2,56,52,000/- made by the AO in the appellant’s income on the allegation

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

145(3) of the Act. 1(c). That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming an addition to the extent of Rs.38,47,800/- out of the total addition of Rs.2,56,52,000/- made by the AO in the appellant’s income on the allegation

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

CHANDAN CHOUHAN,KHARGONE vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Chandan Chouhan, Dcit, Ward No.24, Nfac Vs. Nath Gali, Delhi Khargone (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Auxpc9073A Assessee By Shri Ashok Surjan, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2024 O R D E R

reassess any escaped income much less an income of Rs. 1,00,14,137/- as per this own assertion in para 1 of assessment order. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal which confirms the action of AO wherein the Ld. AO erred in completing assessment exparte and passing order u/s 144 for non-compliance of unserved notices

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

reassessment by invoking the provisions of section 263 may kindly be dropped. Without prejudice to the above as far as merit of the issues reaised in show-cause notice in question are concerned, we have to submit that the learned Assessing Officer has issued notices u/s 133(6) in loan creditor companies (supra). That after getting the requisite details

JANTA CO OPERATIVE CREDIT LIMITED,CHAPORA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BURHANPUR

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshijanta Co Operative Credit Income Tax Officer, Limited, Burhanpur Dhamangaon Road, Vs. Chapora, Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaaaj8060C Assessee By Shri Nd Dave, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.10.2025 O R D E R

reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act, during the pendency of ongoing regular assessment proceedings, which is void and bad in law. 3. The learned CIT (A) failed to understand that the assessment order passed by the learned AO was void and bad in law as the same was claimed to have been passed in continuation of the original proceedings

LATE VINAYAK PURANIK THROUGH LEGAL HEIR YASH PURANIK,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshilate Vinayak Puranik Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ Through L/H Yash 3(2), Vs. Puranik, Indore 7/4, New Palasia, Indore

145. In addition a submission is also placed from page 1 to 6 on record of this Tribunal. The Ld. AR then submitted before us that reopening of assessment by the department of Income Tax is invalid in law. It was interalia contended that notice dated 30.01.2018 u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the original assessee Vinayak Puranik