M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1) RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

234B of the income Tax Act. 3. Common grounds have been taken by the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee except the figures. Since the facts are common, we are deciding for the sake of brevity M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 21 of 66 I.T.A.No. 24/Ind/2015 for the assessment year

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

234B of the income Tax Act. 3. Common grounds have been taken by the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee except the figures. Since the facts are common, we are deciding for the sake of brevity M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 21 of 66 I.T.A.No. 24/Ind/2015 for the assessment year

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

234B of the income Tax Act. 3. Common grounds have been taken by the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee except the figures. Since the facts are common, we are deciding for the sake of brevity M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 21 of 66 I.T.A.No. 24/Ind/2015 for the assessment year

M/S. SANWARIA AGROILS LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

4 relates to charge of interest u/s. 234B (3) of the Act. 42. The learned Counsel relying in the case of wherein it was held that VIjay Kumar Saboo (HUF) Ors v. ACIT 340 ITR 382 (Karn) submitted that interest u/s. 234B (3) is available in case of reassessment only from the date of original assessment and not from

BARKHA KHANDELWAL,AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1),INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Barkha Khandelwal Ito -3(1) Aggrieved Assesse Indore 1108, Pinnacle D Dreams, Tower -1 Vs. Near Bhawan Prominent School Pipliyakumar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ajnpk4150B Assessee By Shri Rakesh Gupta, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20 .09.2024

4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the impugned reassessment order passed u/s 143(3)/147 without assumption of jurisdiction as per law and without complying with mandatory conditions u/s 147 to 151 as envisaged under the Income

SANDHYA SINGH,ROHIT NAGAR, BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(3) BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

4. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued several statutory notices under sections 148 and 142(1) of the Act calling upon the assessee to file the return in response to the notice under section 148, explain the nature and source of the bank credits, and furnish details of her business activities and proprietary concerns. Despite repeated opportunities

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

234B and 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

DEEYA AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BURHANPUR vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshideeya Agrotech Private Ito Burhanpur बनाम/ Limited, Vs. 203, Bahadarpur Road, Burhanpur 450331, Madhya Pradesh, Indore (Pan:Aadcd9603J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pankaj Mogra, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Reassessment order passed on the basis of said notice was not justified. The same requires to be quashed. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the L.d. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in confirming the act of Ld. AO for reopening of the assessment U/s 147/148 of the Act dr. 15.03.2019 i.e after

SURESH JAT,BADNAWAR vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, DHAR, DHAR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisuresh Jat, Ito, बनाम/ C/O S.V. Agrawal & Associate Dhar. Vs. Dadi Dham, 24-25, Joy Building Colony, Old Aplasia, Indore. (Pan: Anopj2666E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri Anup Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act 2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in reopening the case of the appellant merely on the basis of non-existent/factually incorrect reasons 3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-II, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Jayganga Exim India Pvt. Dy. Cit, Limited Central-Ii, [Formerly Known As ‘Jay Jyoti Bhopal (India) Pvt. Ltd.’] बनाम/ 26, Col. Biswas Road, Ground Floor, Vs. West Side Flat, Kolkata (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacj 8822 E Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

section 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2012-13, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds: (i) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action Page 1 of 18 M/s. Jayganga Exim India

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisantosh Agrawal Pr. Cit-1 Mig-11, Mla Quarters Bhopal Vs. Jawahar Chowk Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ahkpa 1449E Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16 .08.2023

reassessment was framed u/s 147 r.w. section 143(3) on 28.09.2017 accepting the return of income at Rs.6,50,640/-. Thereafter on perusal of the assessment record the Pr. CIT noted that the assesse has sold the property held jointly with Smt. Sheela Devi Agarwal and Shri Satyanarayan Agrawal on 18.01.2020 for a sum of Rs.1

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

234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee Shri Sanjay which is engaged in the business of real estate developer and builder. Search u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 30.11.2012 6 Sanjay Kumar Sinha,Anjana Sinha, Rajiv Sharma

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

234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee Shri Sanjay which is engaged in the business of real estate developer and builder. Search u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 30.11.2012 6 Sanjay Kumar Sinha,Anjana Sinha, Rajiv Sharma

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

234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee Shri Sanjay which is engaged in the business of real estate developer and builder. Search u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 30.11.2012 6 Sanjay Kumar Sinha,Anjana Sinha, Rajiv Sharma

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

234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee Shri Sanjay which is engaged in the business of real estate developer and builder. Search u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 30.11.2012 6 Sanjay Kumar Sinha,Anjana Sinha, Rajiv Sharma

M/S. GANPAT PANNALAL,HARDA vs. ITO-1 HARDA, HARDA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2007-08

234B and 234C is not justified. 4.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified. 5.That the appellate craves, leave to add, to urge, to alter or to amend any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing. 3. Briefly stated facts

HARDEEP OBEROI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(5), INDORE

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2015-16

4 of 12 Shri Hardeep Oberoi A.Y. 2015-16 documentary evidence. In view of the above the appellant's claim cannot be accepted and the AO has rightly made the addition following the provisions of section 44AD of the IT Act. Hence, these grounds of appeal are dismissed. Ground No 6, 7 & 8 9.1 These grounds of appeal

SMT. ARCHANA CHANDAK,INDORE vs. ITO 3(2), INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal isallowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment proceedings. However, the Ld. AO failed to appreciate that section 68 of the Act is applicable to the sums credit in the books of accounts of the assessee and not on the bank statements. ' Section 68 of the Act is as under: "Cash credits 68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained