ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

reassessment to disallow the claim is nothing but the change of opinion which is not permissible under the law. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561. He has also relied upon the following decisions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

reassessment to disallow the claim is nothing but the change of opinion which is not permissible under the law. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561. He has also relied upon the following decisions

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

reassessment to disallow the claim is nothing but the change of opinion which is not permissible under the law. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561. He has also relied upon the following decisions

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

reassessment to disallow the claim is nothing but the change of opinion which is not permissible under the law. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561. He has also relied upon the following decisions

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

163 (Bombay) (ix) Vishwanath Engineers v. ACIT [2012] 21 taxmann.com 5 (Gujarat) Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel contended that reassessment proceedings initiated in the case of the assessee were not maintainable on multiple grounds as discussed hereinabove. 53 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others 32. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

163 (Bombay) (ix) Vishwanath Engineers v. ACIT [2012] 21 taxmann.com 5 (Gujarat) Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel contended that reassessment proceedings initiated in the case of the assessee were not maintainable on multiple grounds as discussed hereinabove. 53 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others 32. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

163 (Bombay) (ix) Vishwanath Engineers v. ACIT [2012] 21 taxmann.com 5 (Gujarat) Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel contended that reassessment proceedings initiated in the case of the assessee were not maintainable on multiple grounds as discussed hereinabove. 53 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others 32. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused

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

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. 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

SHRI RAJEEV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

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

reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record

SMT ANJANA SINHA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

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

reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record

SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

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

reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record

SMT. MANJU SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

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

reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record

SAMEER MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. ITO-3(3) , INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13

reassessment order 1 [ITA No.224/Ind/2019] [Sameer Maheshwari ] which is invalid, barred by limitation, illegal bad in law, void ab initio and therefore liable to be quashed. 3. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.17,28,000/- to the total income of the appellant, treating the same as unexplained investment. 2. At the outset of hearing, Ld. counsel

SH. RAMSWAROOP SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL- 1, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 151 of the Act. 6(a). That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, in law, in upholding the action of the AO for issuing the notice under s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and framing of the reassessment thereafter, which are quite, unjustified, unwarranted, without jurisdiction

ACIT 2 (1), UJJAIN vs. M/S PHALODI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY NERSIGARH, NERSIGARH

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit-2(1) M/S. Phaloudi Construction बनाम/ Company, Nersingarh Ujjain Vs. Rajgarh (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aaffp9523Q Revenue By Shri V.J. Boricha, Sr. Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 06. 02.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal By Revenue Pertaining To A.Y. 2007-08 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)- Ujjain, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Dated 04.07.2017 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On M/S. Phaloudi Construction Co. Itano.657/Ind/2017 31.01.2013 By Dcit, 2(1), Ujjain. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.9,97,515/- On Account Of Short Deduction Of Tds Based On Proviso 2 To Section 40(A)(Ia) Which Was Introduced Only From 01.04.2013.”

163/-. Subsequently, Ld. Assessing Officer on observing that the tax has been deducted at source at lower rate than the rate applicable on payment of machinery hire charges, issued notice u/s 148 of the Act 2 M/s. Phaloudi Construction Co. ITANo.657/Ind/2017 and thereafter concluded the reassessment proceeding u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 31.01.2013 and after considering

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