BARKHA KHANDELWAL,AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1),INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Barkha Khandelwal Ito -3(1) Aggrieved Assesse Indore 1108, Pinnacle D Dreams, Tower -1 Vs. Near Bhawan Prominent School Pipliyakumar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ajnpk4150B Assessee By Shri Rakesh Gupta, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20 .09.2024

reassessment under section- 153A;] (c ) an order made under section-154 or section- 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

155 (Mad.) and\n(v) Cit v. Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010) 187 Taxman 312/320 ITR 561\nSC.\n20.\nTo sustain the finding rendered by the Tribunal on the entitlement of the\nassessee for relief under section 80-1 of the Act, the learned counsel for the\nrespondent/assessee referred to the decision of in the cases

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH PUAR SON & LR OF LATE TUKOJI ROA PUAR,DEWAS vs. THE PR. CIT-1, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Vikram Singh Paur, Pr. Cit Son & Legal Heir Of Late Shri Bhopal बनाम/ Tukoji Rao Puar Vs. Dewas (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Agdpp8186B Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 .05.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Kul Bharat, J.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Pr. Cit, Bhopal Dated 18.03.2016 For The Assessment Year

reassessment but it does not speak about proceedings initiated u/s 263 of the Act. 11 [ITA No.407/Ind/2016] [Vokram Singh Puar] Undisputedly, the mistake as sought to be rectified by the revenue indirectly, in fact had occurred in the impugned order. As it is stated by the revenue that clerical mistake crept into the impugned order in the form of typographical

DYPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. , INDORE

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

155, 158BE and 231 and for the purposes of limitation under section 243 or section 244 or, as the case may be, section 244A, this proviso shall also apply accordingly. 6.8 The appellant has placed reliance on the proviso to section 153B which reads as under : (v) in a case where an application made before the Income-tax Settlement Commission

SUMATI KUMAR KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE

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

155, 158BE and 231 and for the purposes of limitation under section 243 or section 244 or, as the case may be, section 244A, this proviso shall also apply accordingly. 6.8 The appellant has placed reliance on the proviso to section 153B which reads as under : (v) in a case where an application made before the Income-tax Settlement Commission

M/S NISHANT FINANCE PVT.LTD,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL (I), INDORE, INDORE

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

155, 158BE and 231 and for the purposes of limitation under section 243 or section 244 or, as the case may be, section 244A, this proviso shall also apply accordingly. 6.8 The appellant has placed reliance on the proviso to section 153B which reads as under : (v) in a case where an application made before the Income-tax Settlement Commission

PARTH KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (I), INDORE , INDORE

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

155, 158BE and 231 and for the purposes of limitation under section 243 or section 244 or, as the case may be, section 244A, this proviso shall also apply accordingly. 6.8 The appellant has placed reliance on the proviso to section 153B which reads as under : (v) in a case where an application made before the Income-tax Settlement Commission

MANOJ KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (1), INDORE, INDORE

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

155, 158BE and 231 and for the purposes of limitation under section 243 or section 244 or, as the case may be, section 244A, this proviso shall also apply accordingly. 6.8 The appellant has placed reliance on the proviso to section 153B which reads as under : (v) in a case where an application made before the Income-tax Settlement Commission

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD.,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE

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

155, 158BE and 231 and for the purposes of limitation under section 243 or section 244 or, as the case may be, section 244A, this proviso shall also apply accordingly. 6.8 The appellant has placed reliance on the proviso to section 153B which reads as under : (v) in a case where an application made before the Income-tax Settlement Commission

SHRIMATI SHARDA KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (I), INDORE, INDORE

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

155, 158BE and 231 and for the purposes of limitation under section 243 or section 244 or, as the case may be, section 244A, this proviso shall also apply accordingly. 6.8 The appellant has placed reliance on the proviso to section 153B which reads as under : (v) in a case where an application made before the Income-tax Settlement Commission

SANJEEV AGRAWAL ,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

reassessment\nproceedings being ab-initio void.\"\nPage 13 of 33\nSanjeev Agrawal\nITA No. 38/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18\n(v)\nIn TANMAC India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle I,\nPondicherry [2017] 78 taxmann.com 155 (Madras) [19-12-2016],\nit was held thus:\n“8. A perusal of the Reasons would indicate that the assessing officer\nproceeds solely

ABHISHEK DHANOTIA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A.” [emphasis supplied] 4. From the above mentioned circular, it is evident that provisions of section 153C are applicable in specific circumstances when any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belong or belongs

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

Appeal is allowed

reassessment\nproceeding on the ground that there has been no proper approval u/s.151 of\nthe Act. As per section 151 of the Act which deals with sanction for issue of\nnotice and sub-section (1) says that no notice shall be issued u/s.148 of the\nAct by an AO after the expiry of a period of four years from

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

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. DILIP KUMAR MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN HUF, INDORE

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Dilip Kumar Mahendra Acit (Central)-1, Vs. Kumar Jain, 6, Near Jagdale School, Indore Janki Nagar, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaehd1394J Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr.Dr Appellant By Shri Mahesh Agrawal, Adv. Date Of Hearing 05.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement .02.2021 O R D E R

reassessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 30.11.2018 assessing income at Rs.1,92,70,500/- adding unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE at Rs. 1,86,00,000/- and unaccounted interest income at Rs.2,03,610/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. 4. Now the Revenue is in appeal before

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

PIYUSH JUNEJA,KHANDWA vs. JCIT RANGE-4 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal if the assessee is allowed in terms as

Bench: Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Piyush Juneja, Jt.Commissioner 10,Anand Nagar, Of Income-Tax, बनाम/ Khandwa Range 4, Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan : Aolpj9133N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 01.08.2024

reassessment proceedings have also been challenged separately by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A), but the same is still pending for adjudication before the Ld. CIT(A). However, against the penalty order u/s 271E of the Act, the appeal to Ld. CIT(A) has been decided against the assessee. In the appeal against the levy of penalty u/s 271E

M/S. BHANDARI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

155 (PC in the case of Hoystead vs. Commissioner of Taxation, wherein it was held as under:- "Parties are not permitted to begin fresh litigation because of new views they may entertain of the law of the case, or new versions which they present as to what should be a proper apprehension by the court of the legal result either