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

section 147, the reasons fail to even state that the requirements of the proviso are satisfied in the instant case and the alleged escapement (if at all) is on account of failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for purpose of assessment. k) In support of this contention he has relied upon

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

section 147, the reasons fail to even state that the requirements of the proviso are satisfied in the instant case and the alleged escapement (if at all) is on account of failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for purpose of assessment. k) In support of this contention he has relied upon

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

section 147, the reasons fail to even state that the requirements of the proviso are satisfied in the instant case and the alleged escapement (if at all) is on account of failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for purpose of assessment. k) In support of this contention he has relied upon

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

section 147, the reasons fail to even state that the requirements of the proviso are satisfied in the instant case and the alleged escapement (if at all) is on account of failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for purpose of assessment. k) In support of this contention he has relied upon

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

234(. 9.The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or otherwise raise any other ground of appeal. [ITA No.655/Ind/2018] [Abhishek Dhanotia ] 2.The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the case of the assessee was reopened on the ground that the information was received from the DCIT Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai that during the search and survey

SHRI M A KHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) It(Ss)A Nos.37 To 42/Ind/2015 & Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2010-11 Late M.A. Khan Acit 3(1) (Through L/H Nazhat Bhopal Parveen Khan) बनाम/ B-90, Housing Board, Vs. Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan:Aewpk 3620 C Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Shri Vijay Bansal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

234 Taxman 300 observed: “37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A (1) will have

ANAND PRAKASH KAMDAR,BHOPAL vs. ACIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2010-11 Anand Prakash Kamdar Acit-1(1) E-4/188, Bhopal बनाम/ Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Afopk0788A Assesseeby S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv.& Gagan Tiwari Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2023

234 Taxman 300 observed: “37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A (1) will have

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

NARENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

234 crore loss\nO FY 2015-16: ₹4,859 crore loss\nO FY 2016-17: ₹4,793 crore loss\nO FY 2017-18: ₹7,993 crore loss\nO FY 2018-19: 14,904 crore loss\nii. The losses were attributed to high employee costs (amounting to\n75% of revenue in some years), stiff competition in the mobile\nsegment, a lack

ASHA RANI PANDYA,INDORE vs. CPC BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniasha Rani Pandya Dcit/Acit-1(1) 389 1Ad- Scheme No.74C Indore Vijay Nagar, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aqqpp7081A Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain & Shri Prakash Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28 .06.2024

reassessment by taking into consideration of the FTC filed by the petitioner on 02.02.2021. The respondent is directed to give due credit to the Kenya income of the petitioner and pass the final assessment order. Further, it is made clear that the impugned order is set aside only to the extent of disallowing of FTC claim made by the petitioner

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. KUMARI SHEETAL GARG, INDORE

In the result Ground No. 1& 2 of the

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Dcit-3(1), Kumari Sheetal Garg, Indore Vs. 8/2, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Afhpg9179G Revenue By Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ca Date Of Hearing 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 O R D E R

reassessment proceedings are invalid but just for academic purpose we will adjudicate Ground No.1 & 2 relating to the merits of the case. We find that the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.2,50,74,858/- observing as follows; “5. Ground Nos. 2 & 3:- The above grounds are directed against the rejection of claim of exemption