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

3) was completed vide order dated 19.12.2011 thereby making addition of Rs. 37,25,962/- on account of low net profit and deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) and hence assessing total income at Rs. 1,81,09,150/-. Thereafter, an order u/s 154 was passed on 26.12.2012 on the question of depreciation resulting into determination of total income

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

3) was completed vide order dated 19.12.2011 thereby making addition of Rs. 37,25,962/- on account of low net profit and deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) and hence assessing total income at Rs. 1,81,09,150/-. Thereafter, an order u/s 154 was passed on 26.12.2012 on the question of depreciation resulting into determination of total income

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

3) was completed vide order dated 19.12.2011 thereby making addition of Rs. 37,25,962/- on account of low net profit and deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) and hence assessing total income at Rs. 1,81,09,150/-. Thereafter, an order u/s 154 was passed on 26.12.2012 on the question of depreciation resulting into determination of total income

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

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

3) was completed vide order dated 19.12.2011 thereby making addition of Rs. 37,25,962/- on account of low net profit and deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) and hence assessing total income at Rs. 1,81,09,150/-. Thereafter, an order u/s 154 was passed on 26.12.2012 on the question of depreciation resulting into determination of total income

SANTOSH RATHORE,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

section 154. The\nbench minutely analysed law in this regard and applying the\nprinciple of 'coram non judice' and following aforesaid judgments of\nthe supreme court, it was held that if an assessee seeks to challenge\nthe reassessment proceedings as being without jurisdiction, when\naction for rectification is sought to be taken on the assumption of the\nvalidity

BABITA CHELAWAT,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed & the impugned order is set aside

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

3) rws 147. The order was uploaded on the new income tax portal and no communication was made to the assessee about the same. I have gone through the ground and submission made by the appellant on this issue. The appellant claims that the AO failed to serve the rectification order under Section 154. However, the rectification request does

MADHO BIHARI AGRAWAL,BURHANPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 4(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act"] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2016-17, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:\n“1.The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.1,46,13,858/- as income u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n2.The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC failed to appreciate that

SHRI GURVINDER SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-3, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2009-10 Gurvinder Singh Bhatia, Addl. Cit, 8/5, Bcc House, Range 3, बनाम/ Manormaganj, Indore. Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abhpb 5245 N Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, Ca & Ld. Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.12.2023

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee u/s 154 for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.” Section 14A(3

NILIMA KOTHARI,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSTT. CENTRE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

3(1) of TOLA, cannot be construed as one which could 18 Smt. Nilima Kothari extend the period of limitation provided under Section 149(1)(a) of the 1961 Act. As per the ratio enunciated in Ashish Agrawal‟s case, Section 149(1)(a) would apply to AY 2016-17 and AY 2017-18. 50. The other argument that

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

reassessment. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the honourable CIT(A) was not justified in upholding that the receipt from job work of mixing of rubber at Rs. 34,19,894 was not the business receipts/income and in confirming the same was income from other sources. 3.On the facts and in the circumstances

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

reassessment. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the honourable CIT(A) was not justified in upholding that the receipt from job work of mixing of rubber at Rs. 34,19,894 was not the business receipts/income and in confirming the same was income from other sources. 3.On the facts and in the circumstances

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

reassessment. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the honourable CIT(A) was not justified in upholding that the receipt from job work of mixing of rubber at Rs. 34,19,894 was not the business receipts/income and in confirming the same was income from other sources. 3.On the facts and in the circumstances

SHRI SANJAY DUBEY,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 1 (2), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

3) and order passed u/s 154 of the Act respectively for A.Y.2011-12. 2. In the appeal arising from the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w. section

SHRI SANJAY DUBEY,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 1 (2), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

3) and order passed u/s 154 of the Act respectively for A.Y.2011-12. 2. In the appeal arising from the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w. section

SHAILESH KALWADIA (HUF),UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BPL-C(91)(1), BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 based solely on third-party information, without granting the assessee any opportunity for cross-examination or verification of such information, which is bad in law. 2. Addition of?18,42,978/-on Account of Alleged Bogus LTCG: The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of?18,42,978/- as unexplained income under

SHAILESH KALWADIA (HUF) ,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BPL-C-(91)(1), UJJAIN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 based solely on third-party information, without granting the assessee any opportunity for cross-examination or verification of such information, which is bad in law. 2. Addition of?18,42,978/-on Account of Alleged Bogus LTCG: The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of?18,42,978/- as unexplained income under

RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 5, SEHORE, SEHORE

In the result, the impugned order is set aside as & by way of\nremand back to the file of the Ld

section 249(2) of the IT Act, the\nsame is not admitted.\n4. In view of the above facts, the appeal is dismissed for\nstatistical purpose and not required to be adjudicated on\nmerits.\n5. In result, the appeal is disposed off.\"\n2.5 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Order\"\nhas preferred the instant second appeal before this

M/S M.P.WAREHOUSING & LOGISTIC CORPORATION,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S M.P. Warehousing Pr. Cit-1 & Logistic Corporation, Bhopal बनाम/ Office Complex, Block-1, Gautam Nagar, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aadcm 7742 B Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can‟t usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision. No overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the revision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal