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

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

reassessment, as the case may be, is less than sixty days such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. 6.2 The counsel for the appellant further submitted that admittedly the assessment involved in this matter is under section 153A of the Act and the provision governing

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

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

reassessment, as the case may be, is less than sixty days such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. 6.2 The counsel for the appellant further submitted that admittedly the assessment involved in this matter is under section 153A of the Act and the provision governing

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

reassessment, as the case may be, is less than sixty days such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. 6.2 The counsel for the appellant further submitted that admittedly the assessment involved in this matter is under section 153A of the Act and the provision governing

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

reassessment, as the case may be, is less than sixty days such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. 6.2 The counsel for the appellant further submitted that admittedly the assessment involved in this matter is under section 153A of the Act and the provision governing

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

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

reassessment, as the case may be, is less than sixty days such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. 6.2 The counsel for the appellant further submitted that admittedly the assessment involved in this matter is under section 153A of the Act and the provision governing

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

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

reassessment, as the case may be, is less than sixty days such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. 6.2 The counsel for the appellant further submitted that admittedly the assessment involved in this matter is under section 153A of the Act and the provision governing

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

reassessment, as the case may be, is less than sixty days such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. 6.2 The counsel for the appellant further submitted that admittedly the assessment involved in this matter is under section 153A of the Act and the provision governing

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

reassessment proceedings is 31.03.2024. This date has been provided having regard to the fact that the notices were served in FY 2022-23. (viii). The circulars issued by the CBDT cannot run contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court. Likewise, the delegate cannot act in contravention of the Parent Act. Thus, the circulars/instructions/notifications issued by the Central Government cannot

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

196 I. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorised representative, you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made under section 27 I (1)( c ). Yours faithfully, \. ------ (Ram kumar Yadava) Deputy Commissioner of Income

M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

196 I. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorised representative, you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made under section 27 I (1)( c ). Yours faithfully, \. ------ (Ram kumar Yadava) Deputy Commissioner of Income

M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

196 I. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorised representative, you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made under section 27 I (1)( c ). Yours faithfully, \. ------ (Ram kumar Yadava) Deputy Commissioner of Income

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)

196/- [Rs.3,07,00,996 minus Rs.1,23,40,800] has also been made in the hands of the assessee on account of undisclosed investment made by the assessee in purchase of plots in Pulak City in the name of Shri Vivek Chugh. Accordingly, an aggregate addition of Rs.3,79,04,952/- was made by the Assessing Officer

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)

196/- [Rs.3,07,00,996 minus Rs.1,23,40,800] has also been made in the hands of the assessee on account of undisclosed investment made by the assessee in purchase of plots in Pulak City in the name of Shri Vivek Chugh. Accordingly, an aggregate addition of Rs.3,79,04,952/- was made by the Assessing Officer

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)

196/- [Rs.3,07,00,996 minus Rs.1,23,40,800] has also been made in the hands of the assessee on account of undisclosed investment made by the assessee in purchase of plots in Pulak City in the name of Shri Vivek Chugh. Accordingly, an aggregate addition of Rs.3,79,04,952/- was made by the Assessing Officer

MS MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2 (1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

reassessment now sought to be done was merely a change in opinion. 15. However, the AO turned down objections of assessee through letter dated 05.11.2019, copy at Page 26A-26C of Paper-Book. Ld. AR submitted in this letter, the AO has basically mentioned that the case had been re- opened on the basis of subsequent scrutiny-assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -5(1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT. LTD., BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

reassessment now sought to be done was merely a change in opinion. 15. However, the AO turned down objections of assessee through letter dated 05.11.2019, copy at Page 26A-26C of Paper-Book. Ld. AR submitted in this letter, the AO has basically mentioned that the case had been re- opened on the basis of subsequent scrutiny-assessment

MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD ,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT -2- (1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

reassessment now sought to be done was merely a change in opinion. 15. However, the AO turned down objections of assessee through letter dated 05.11.2019, copy at Page 26A-26C of Paper-Book. Ld. AR submitted in this letter, the AO has basically mentioned that the case had been re- opened on the basis of subsequent scrutiny-assessment

MS MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2 (1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

reassessment now sought to be done was merely a change in opinion. 15. However, the AO turned down objections of assessee through letter dated 05.11.2019, copy at Page 26A-26C of Paper-Book. Ld. AR submitted in this letter, the AO has basically mentioned that the case had been re- opened on the basis of subsequent scrutiny-assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5 1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

reassessment now sought to be done was merely a change in opinion. 15. However, the AO turned down objections of assessee through letter dated 05.11.2019, copy at Page 26A-26C of Paper-Book. Ld. AR submitted in this letter, the AO has basically mentioned that the case had been re- opened on the basis of subsequent scrutiny-assessment