SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

150, 151) [Vol.-I] v) Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in the case of Narayana Heights & Towers in ITA No.1033/JP/2016 vide order dated 20/02/2017. (P- 152 – 171) (165, 166, 168) [Vol.-I] Apart from the above, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the additions were made on protective basis. When the notices were issued for levying

SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

150, 151) [Vol.-I] v) Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in the case of Narayana Heights & Towers in ITA No.1033/JP/2016 vide order dated 20/02/2017. (P- 152 – 171) (165, 166, 168) [Vol.-I] Apart from the above, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the additions were made on protective basis. When the notices were issued for levying

SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

150, 151) [Vol.-I] v) Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in the case of Narayana Heights & Towers in ITA No.1033/JP/2016 vide order dated 20/02/2017. (P- 152 – 171) (165, 166, 168) [Vol.-I] Apart from the above, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the additions were made on protective basis. When the notices were issued for levying

SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

150, 151) [Vol.-I] v) Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in the case of Narayana Heights & Towers in ITA No.1033/JP/2016 vide order dated 20/02/2017. (P- 152 – 171) (165, 166, 168) [Vol.-I] Apart from the above, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the additions were made on protective basis. When the notices were issued for levying

SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

150, 151) [Vol.-I] v) Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in the case of Narayana Heights & Towers in ITA No.1033/JP/2016 vide order dated 20/02/2017. (P- 152 – 171) (165, 166, 168) [Vol.-I] Apart from the above, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the additions were made on protective basis. When the notices were issued for levying

SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

150, 151) [Vol.-I] v) Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in the case of Narayana Heights & Towers in ITA No.1033/JP/2016 vide order dated 20/02/2017. (P- 152 – 171) (165, 166, 168) [Vol.-I] Apart from the above, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the additions were made on protective basis. When the notices were issued for levying

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

150; [(ba) an order of assessment or reassessment under section 153A 87[[except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel]] 88[***] 89[or an order referred to in sub- section (12) of section 144BA];] [(bb) an order of assessment or reassessment under sub-section (3) of section 92CD;] (c) an order made under section

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

150; [(ba) an order of assessment or reassessment under section 153A 87[[except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel]] 88[***] 89[or an order referred to in sub- section (12) of section 144BA];] [(bb) an order of assessment or reassessment under sub-section (3) of section 92CD;] (c) an order made under section

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

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

reassessment proceedings since those notices were in their knowledge as they were served physically. However, show cause notices and order passed by the Ld Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Indore was never served physically to the appellant as a result of which the appellant was totally unaware of the fact that show cause notices had been issued and order

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

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

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

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

1 of 7 Late Shri Dattatray Vamanrao Sonar Through wife Aruna Sonar ITA No. 409/Ind/2025 – AY 2015-16 2. At the outset, we note that the assessee “Dattatray Vamanrao Sonar” had already deceased on 20.09.2019 (even before issuance of notice dated 11.03.2022 u/s 148A / dated 30.03.2022 u/s 148 by AO for making assessment u/s 147). Therefore, the present appeal

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