DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

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

reassessment proceedings. We are unable to accept that is the true position in law. In our opinion the decision of the Andra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bavuri V. Narasimhan, (1) relied on by the assessee was not correctly decided. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow these appeals, vacate the answers given by the High

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

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

reassessment proceedings. We are unable to accept that is the true position in law. In our opinion the decision of the Andra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bavuri V. Narasimhan, (1) relied on by the assessee was not correctly decided. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow these appeals, vacate the answers given by the High

ROHIT KUMAR YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(5), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirohit Kumar Yadav Ito 5(5) Hig-Dx-2Manishmati Arvind Indore Vihar, Mahishmati Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaupy5015 F Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2024

section 143 for those years. In the instant case we are concerned with the reassessment, in which there are more restraints on the power of the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, hold that the initiation of reassessment proceedings on this count cannot be upheld.” 6.1 Thus, the protective assessment cannot be independent of substantive assessment as protective assessment is always successive

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 SAHARAYAN UNIVERSAL MULTIPURPOSE SOCITY LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Saharayan Universal Pcit-1, Multipurpose Society Bhopal Limited, बनाम/ 195, Zone-1, In Front Of D.B. Mall, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aakas 6209 A Assessee By Shri P.K. Bansal, Ld. Ar Revenue By None Date Of Hearing 26.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R

195, Zone-1, In front of D.B. Mall, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) PAN: AAKAS 6209 A Assessee by Shri P.K. Bansal, Ld. AR Revenue by None Date of Hearing 26.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement 22.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by revision-order dated 19.03.2020 passed by learned Pr. Commissioner of Income

MANTRI BROS,NEEMUCH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME-TAX

Appeal is allowed

195-208 in Paper-Book, the same are re-produced below:\n\nPara 2 of assessment-order dated 23.12.2013 u/s 143(3) for AY\n2010-11:\n\n\"2. निर्धारिती श्री सुरेश चन्द्र मंत्री, प्रो. मे. मंत्री ब्रदर्स, नीमच के नाम से कृषि उत्पाद जैसे-\nचना, धनिया, मेथी, पोस्ता, उड़द, रायड़ा आदि का कृषि उपज मंडी से क्रय कर थोक

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

section 147 would give arbitrary power to AO to reopen past assessments on a mere change of opinion i.e. a mere change of opinion cannot form basis for reopening a completed assessment. 4.10 In the instant case, the AO had passed the original assessment taking into account all the documents and facts of the case and again, he had reopened

SHRI MANUEL MEDA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, Cross Objection by the assessee in CO

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradit(Ss)A No.89/Ind/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit 1(1) M/S. L.N. Gupta Mathur Vaishya बनाम/ Charitable Trust Bhopal Vs. E-1/55, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aaatl4820E

reassess the income of the ‘person other than the searched person’ in accordance with the provision of u/s 153A of the Act needs to be ‘satisfied’ that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person. 15. So the satisfaction note