M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. section 147 the AO disallowed the benefit of section 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assesse on commercial basis. Similar for A.Y.2016-17 & 2017-18 the AO while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. section 147 the AO disallowed the benefit of section 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assesse on commercial basis. Similar for A.Y.2016-17 & 2017-18 the AO while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee

M/S M.P. MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. section 147 the AO disallowed the benefit of section 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assesse on commercial basis. Similar for A.Y.2016-17 & 2017-18 the AO while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee

THE ACIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL vs. SHRI SUNIL SAHU , RAIPUR

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment proceedings for the A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2012-13, we are refraining ourselves to decide other grounds raised by the assessee which have now become academic only. Accordingly, the appeals for the A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2012-13 stand allowed. ITA No.355/Ind/2020 & Ors. (ACIT vs. Shri Sunil Sahu) A.Y.– 2013-14 & Ors. - 12 - ITA No.355/Ind/2020 (A.Y. 2013-14), filed

SUNIL SAHU,RAIPUR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment proceedings for the A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2012-13, we are refraining ourselves to decide other grounds raised by the assessee which have now become academic only. Accordingly, the appeals for the A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2012-13 stand allowed. ITA No.355/Ind/2020 & Ors. (ACIT vs. Shri Sunil Sahu) A.Y.– 2013-14 & Ors. - 12 - ITA No.355/Ind/2020 (A.Y. 2013-14), filed

SUNIL SAHU,RAIPUR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment proceedings for the A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2012-13, we are refraining ourselves to decide other grounds raised by the assessee which have now become academic only. Accordingly, the appeals for the A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2012-13 stand allowed. ITA No.355/Ind/2020 & Ors. (ACIT vs. Shri Sunil Sahu) A.Y.– 2013-14 & Ors. - 12 - ITA No.355/Ind/2020 (A.Y. 2013-14), filed

SUNIL SAHU,RAIPUR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment proceedings for the A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2012-13, we are refraining ourselves to decide other grounds raised by the assessee which have now become academic only. Accordingly, the appeals for the A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2012-13 stand allowed. ITA No.355/Ind/2020 & Ors. (ACIT vs. Shri Sunil Sahu) A.Y.– 2013-14 & Ors. - 12 - ITA No.355/Ind/2020 (A.Y. 2013-14), filed

PRAMOD PALIWAL,KHANWA vs. ACIT KHANWA, KHANWA

In the result Ground No. 1 (a) &

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10 Shri Pramod Paliwal, Acit, Prop. M/S. Pragati Vs. Khandwa Construction, Ramkishanganj, Khandwa (M.P) (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Adapp8012A Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, Cas Date Of Hearing 10.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 17.10.2019 O R D E R

reassessment proceedings deserve to be quashed. For such proposition, reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements : i) Duli Chand Singhania vs. ACIT (2004) 269 ITR 192 (PHHC) ii) Swarovski India Limited v. Deputy CIT' [2014} 368 ITR 601 (Delhi) iii) CITvs. ITW India Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 195 (P&H) Pramod Paliwal State Bank of Patiala

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

173 Taxman 458 (SC) The reasoning given by the Tribunal could not be accepted simply because the Assessing Officer himself did not say any such thing in his 24 M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. order. There is no doubt that the proceedings before the Assessing Officer are quasi-judiucial proceedings and a decision taken by him in this regard must

M/S SHRI GURMUKHDAS CONTRACTORS P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-CENRRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in I

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of section 144BA.]" 9.1 The above provisions of section 153D of the Act were inserted by Finance Act, 2007 with effect from 01/06/2007. In our humble understanding of the said

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

reassessment proceedings, where the AO is ceased of certain information and documents, it is incumbent upon him to confront the same to the assessee and allow the latter to file its objections and rebuttal. The additions made, merely relying on these information and documentation, without confronting the assessee cannot be accepted. Besides furnishing the reasons for reopening the assessment

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

reassess the total income of an assessee. We also find that the expression ‘total income’ has been defined under clause (45) of section 2 of the Act and according to which, the expression ‘total income’ means the total amount of income referred to in section 5, computed in the manner laid down in the Act. Thus, in our considered opinion

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

reassess the total income of an assessee. We also find that the expression ‘total income’ has been defined under clause (45) of section 2 of the Act and according to which, the expression ‘total income’ means the total amount of income referred to in section 5, computed in the manner laid down in the Act. Thus, in our considered opinion

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

reassess the total income of an assessee. We also find that the expression ‘total income’ has been defined under clause (45) of section 2 of the Act and according to which, the expression ‘total income’ means the total amount of income referred to in section 5, computed in the manner laid down in the Act. Thus, in our considered opinion

SHRI SANJEEV PATNI,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjeev Patni Indore Pan:Aftpp6237Q : Appellant

reassessment proceedings are bad-in-law and deserve to be quashed. 5. Per contra, ld. CIT-DR relied on the orders of the Revenue Authorities and submitted that the Assessing Officer made all possible efforts to serve the notice on the assessee including affixure, therefore, the notice was rightly served on the assessee. Sanjeev Patni 6. We have heard rival

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 (1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJEEV PATNI, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjeev Patni Indore Pan:Aftpp6237Q : Appellant

reassessment proceedings are bad-in-law and deserve to be quashed. 5. Per contra, ld. CIT-DR relied on the orders of the Revenue Authorities and submitted that the Assessing Officer made all possible efforts to serve the notice on the assessee including affixure, therefore, the notice was rightly served on the assessee. Sanjeev Patni 6. We have heard rival

HARLEEN KAUR BHATIA,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

reassess the assessee’s income observing as follows: “I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the assessment records and the written submission given by the assessee. It is noted that the case was selected for complete 19 HarleenKaur Bhatia &GurvinderKaur Bhatia ITA Nos.150 & 151 /Ind/19 scrutiny through CASS and the reason for selection were mentioned as high ratio

GURVINDER KAUR BHATIA ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

reassess the assessee’s income observing as follows: “I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the assessment records and the written submission given by the assessee. It is noted that the case was selected for complete 19 HarleenKaur Bhatia &GurvinderKaur Bhatia ITA Nos.150 & 151 /Ind/19 scrutiny through CASS and the reason for selection were mentioned as high ratio