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 or recomputation under section 147 83[[except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel 84[***] 85[or an order referred to in sub- section (12) of section 144BA]]] or section 150

LT. SHRI DATTATRAY VAMANRAO SONAR THROUGH WIFE ARUNA SONAR,UJJAIN vs. ITO UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2015-2016 Lt. Dattatray Vamanrao Ito, Sonar, Ujjain (Through Wife Aruna Sonar), बनाम/ 61/17, Grasim Staff Vs. Colony, Birlagram, Nagda, Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afeps1930C Assessee By Shri Manish Vaidya & Ms. Preeti Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026

150 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening of the assessment. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the order of the CIT(A), NFAC is perverse, and bad in law and the same may very kindly be quashed.” 6. We have heard learned Representatives of both sides and considered their submissions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

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

reassessment proceedings. We are unable to accept that is the true position in law. In our opinion the decision of the Andra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bavuri V. Narasimhan, (1) relied on by the assessee was not correctly decided. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow these appeals, vacate the answers given by the High

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

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

reassessment proceedings. We are unable to accept that is the true position in law. In our opinion the decision of the Andra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bavuri V. Narasimhan, (1) relied on by the assessee was not correctly decided. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow these appeals, vacate the answers given by the High

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

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. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

150/-. Thereafter, an order u/s 154 was passed on 26.12.2012 on the question of depreciation resulting into determination of total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,86,21,994/-. Thereafter, on 04.03.2015, the case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 and vide AO’s letter dated 27.05.2015, reasons for reopening the case were provided to the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S FERRO CONCREATE CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT. LTD INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

150/-. Thereafter, an order u/s 154 was passed on 26.12.2012 on the question of depreciation resulting into determination of total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,86,21,994/-. Thereafter, on 04.03.2015, the case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 and vide AO’s letter dated 27.05.2015, reasons for reopening the case were provided to the assessee

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

150/-. Thereafter, an order u/s 154 was passed on 26.12.2012 on the question of depreciation resulting into determination of total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,86,21,994/-. Thereafter, on 04.03.2015, the case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 and vide AO’s letter dated 27.05.2015, reasons for reopening the case were provided to the assessee

SARTHAK REAL BUILT PVT. LTD, ,INDORE vs. DY, CIT,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

150/-. Thereafter, an order u/s 154 was passed on 26.12.2012 on the question of depreciation resulting into determination of total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,86,21,994/-. Thereafter, on 04.03.2015, the case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 and vide AO’s letter dated 27.05.2015, reasons for reopening the case were provided to the assessee

LAWRENCE REBELLO,INDORE vs. ITO-1 (3), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am Shri Lawrence Rebello, Vs Ito-1(3), Indore 3, Nath Mandir Colony, South Tukoganj, Indore Pan No. : Abepr 2143 L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca : "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Singh, Sr.Dr राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : 28/07/2021 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 29 /09 /2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per C.M.Garg, Jm :

reassessment under Section 147 of the Act which is prayed to be quashed and held as unwarranted, illegal and bad-in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer determining total income at Rs.34,01,150

SHAFQAT ULLAH FAROOQI,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 4(4) , BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishafqat Ullah Farooqi Ito 4(4) A-24, Housing Board Bhopal Vs. Colony Koh E Fiza, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabpf0615K Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

reassessment proceedings on the ground that the notice issued u/s 148 is barred by limitation and bad in law. The AO rejected the objections of the assessee and completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 as there was no return of income filed by the assessee even in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee challenged

PRAMOD PALIWAL,KHANWA vs. ACIT KHANWA, KHANWA

In the result Ground No. 1 (a) &

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10 Shri Pramod Paliwal, Acit, Prop. M/S. Pragati Vs. Khandwa Construction, Ramkishanganj, Khandwa (M.P) (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Adapp8012A Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, Cas Date Of Hearing 10.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 17.10.2019 O R D E R

reassessment proceedings deserve to be quashed. For such proposition, reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements : i) Duli Chand Singhania vs. ACIT (2004) 269 ITR 192 (PHHC) ii) Swarovski India Limited v. Deputy CIT' [2014} 368 ITR 601 (Delhi) iii) CITvs. ITW India Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 195 (P&H) Pramod Paliwal State Bank of Patiala

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

150 Taxman 13 (Delhi) Trib.), Pratap Footwear v. ACIT SOT 638 (Jabalpur) (Trib.). c. CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [203 ITR 108] Bom HC). From the aforesaid discussions it is clear that the order so passed by the learned Assessing Officer in the instant case cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not I accordance with law. Since, there

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisantosh Agrawal Pr. Cit-1 Mig-11, Mla Quarters Bhopal Vs. Jawahar Chowk Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ahkpa 1449E Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16 .08.2023

reassessment was framed u/s 147 r.w. section 143(3) on 28.09.2017 accepting the return of income at Rs.6,50,640/-. Thereafter on perusal of the assessment record the Pr. CIT noted that the assesse has sold the property held jointly with Smt. Sheela Devi Agarwal and Shri Satyanarayan Agrawal on 18.01.2020 for a sum of Rs.1

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

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

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

150 Nil 2014-15 257-291 12.11.2014 8,48,71,480 N.A. 8,48,71,480 Nil ** The appeal of department has been dismissed on account of low tax effect. 4. After considering all the documents and after detailed inquiries, a consolidated assessment order was passed u/s. 153A r/w section 143(3) on 30.03.2016, making addition on various grounds. Thereafter