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

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

152/- vide order dated 19/12/2011 u/s 143(3) by JCIT Range-(4), Indore. That the notice u/s 148 dated 04/03/15 and in compliance thereof, return was submitted and reasons for reopening was requested to DCIT Circle-1(1), Indore (M.P.). The Ld. AO supplied the reasons for reopening the assessment on 27/05/2015 and objections thereof were filed on 03/06/15

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

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

152/- vide order dated 19/12/2011 u/s 143(3) by JCIT Range-(4), Indore. That the notice u/s 148 dated 04/03/15 and in compliance thereof, return was submitted and reasons for reopening was requested to DCIT Circle-1(1), Indore (M.P.). The Ld. AO supplied the reasons for reopening the assessment on 27/05/2015 and objections thereof were filed on 03/06/15

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

152/- vide order dated 19/12/2011 u/s 143(3) by JCIT Range-(4), Indore. That the notice u/s 148 dated 04/03/15 and in compliance thereof, return was submitted and reasons for reopening was requested to DCIT Circle-1(1), Indore (M.P.). The Ld. AO supplied the reasons for reopening the assessment on 27/05/2015 and objections thereof were filed on 03/06/15

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

152/- vide order dated 19/12/2011 u/s 143(3) by JCIT Range-(4), Indore. That the notice u/s 148 dated 04/03/15 and in compliance thereof, return was submitted and reasons for reopening was requested to DCIT Circle-1(1), Indore (M.P.). The Ld. AO supplied the reasons for reopening the assessment on 27/05/2015 and objections thereof were filed on 03/06/15

DCIT KHANDWA, KHANDWA vs. M/S RAJRAJESHWAR COTTON CORPORATION, SENDHWA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Cross-

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) & C.O. No. 9/Ind/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit M/S Raj Rajeshwar Cotton Khandwa Corporation, बनाम/ Warla Road, Sendhwa, Vs. District - Khandwa (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aagfr 6243 N Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022

Reassessment solely made on the basis of information received from investigation wing as assessee as beneficiaries of accommodation entries was held to be valid when no cross examination allowed to the assessee.” 02- The AO had made change of opinion. 4.9 Though the power of the AO to reopen an assessment within a period of four years is indisputable wider

M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings.” In the light of the above judgment we are unable to affirm the action of the authorities below. As the initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) vide notice 274 of the Act is not inconformity with the requirement of the law. Thus, the Penalty order

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings.” In the light of the above judgment we are unable to affirm the action of the authorities below. As the initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) vide notice 274 of the Act is not inconformity with the requirement of the law. Thus, the Penalty order

M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings.” In the light of the above judgment we are unable to affirm the action of the authorities below. As the initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) vide notice 274 of the Act is not inconformity with the requirement of the law. Thus, the Penalty order

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

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 the penalty, the Assessing Officer was not clear as to whether it has to be levied for concealing the particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars

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

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 the penalty, the Assessing Officer was not clear as to whether it has to be levied for concealing the particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars

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

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 the penalty, the Assessing Officer was not clear as to whether it has to be levied for concealing the particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars

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

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 the penalty, the Assessing Officer was not clear as to whether it has to be levied for concealing the particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars

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

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 the penalty, the Assessing Officer was not clear as to whether it has to be levied for concealing the particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars

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

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 the penalty, the Assessing Officer was not clear as to whether it has to be levied for concealing the particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars

M/S ADITYA MARKCON P LTD,INDORE vs. THE ITO 1(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Aditya Markcon Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax Officer - 1(1), G-2, Jaora Tower, 22/2 Aayakar Bhawan, बनाम/ Manoramaganj, Indore (Mp) Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaeca 5133 H Assessee By Shri Arpit Gaur, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08 .12.2022 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamble:

reassessment in pursuance thereof, which are quite unjustified, un warranted, without jurisdiction and bad-in- law. ITA 199/Ind/2022 M/s Aditya Markcon Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO AY : 2011-12 [2] 2b). That, without prejudice to the above, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred, in law, in confirming the action of the AO for issuing notice under

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act. 25. On the merits of the addition made by the AO in all the assessment years, we are of the view that the disallowance of depreciation cannot be sustained. The CIT(A), in our view, ought to have deleted the disallowance of depreciation in full. We hold accordingly and allow the relevant grounds