RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

reassessment. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the honourable CIT(A) was not justified in upholding that the receipt from job work of mixing of rubber at Rs. 34,19,894 was not the business receipts/income and in confirming the same was income from other sources. 3.On the facts and in the circumstances

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

reassessment. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the honourable CIT(A) was not justified in upholding that the receipt from job work of mixing of rubber at Rs. 34,19,894 was not the business receipts/income and in confirming the same was income from other sources. 3.On the facts and in the circumstances

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

reassessment. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the honourable CIT(A) was not justified in upholding that the receipt from job work of mixing of rubber at Rs. 34,19,894 was not the business receipts/income and in confirming the same was income from other sources. 3.On the facts and in the circumstances

RUPESH JAISWAL,DHARAMPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

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

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshirupesh Jaiswal, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 111, Azad Marg, Indore Vs. Dist. Dhar, Tehsil Dharampuri, Dharampuri (Pan: Akopj7192C) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka & Ms. Eva Rawka, Ars Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1066805901(1) dated 18.07.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE vs. SEWA SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT TILLOR KHURAD, INDORE

reassessment\nproceedings by the concerned AO.\n9. In Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra) the Supreme Court was dealing with\nthe issue as to whether the penalty proceedings under section 271D are\nindependent of the assessment proceedings. In that case, in the\nassessment order passed in pursuance to the remand no satisfaction\nwas recorded for initiating the proceedings under section 271E

AROLEEN SOFTECH AND ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiaroleen Softech & Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Engineering Private 1(1), Vs. Limited, Indore 270 Shastri Market, Indore (Pan: Aajca4128P) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1070645536(1) dated 26.11.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year

SATISH KUMAR RADHESHYAM CHOUDHARI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) and who by impugned order at para 3.4 has observed and avered as under:- “3.4 During the course of appellate proceedings, it is seen that while the impugned order sought to be challenged in this appeal was passed on 21.03.2022 and the appeal has been filed only on 08.01.2024 i.e. after 658days

SANJEEV AGRAWAL,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and “impugned

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on grounds/reasons stated therein. 2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this Page 2 of 6 Sanjeev Agrawal ITA. No.899/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2013-14 Tribunal and has raised following grounds

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

reassessment under sub-section (3) of section 143, has been\npaid within the period specified in such notice of demand; and no\nappeal against the outer referred to in clause (a) hits sir the\nassessee is a normal salaried assessee and deriving the salary\nfrom the rendering his services for merchant navy. Most of the\ntime the assessee used

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

246A of the Act on Page 4 of 22 Manoj Kumar Gangadharan ITA No. 670&671 /Ind/2024 - A.Ys.2017-18&2018-19 06.11.2023 (Form No.35) before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the grounds and reasons stated therein. The core ground and reasons for dismissal of 1st appeal

INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(1), BHOPAL, METRO WALK BUILDING vs. RAMESH KUMAR SAHU, LEGAL HEIR OF SMT. RAMPYARI BAI, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiincome Tax Officer 3(1), Ramesh Kumar Sahu बनाम/ Bhopal L/H Of Late Smt. Ram Vs. Pyari Bai, 127 New Market, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Anhps5515N) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025

reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant

SANYA DHANANI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(4), INDORE

In the result the \"Impugned order” is upheld as the same\nhas set aside the “impugned assessment order” and has\nremanded the matter back to the file of Ld

sections": ["253", "147", "144", "144B", "148", "56(2)(vii)(C)", "246A", "251", "11"], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings were bad in law for want

RASHIDA BEE,JAORA CHOUPATI vs. CIT(A), RATLAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Reassessment\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.\nAssessing Officer erred in reopening the case under section 148\nof the Act. The appellant prays that the said notice and\nconsequent assessment be declared as void and bad in law and\ndirected to be quashed.\nS.69A – Against alleged unexplained money\nOn the facts and circumstances

DCIT-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MANIDHARI JEWELLERS, BHOPAL

The appeal are allowed

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-3(1), Manidhari Jewellers, बनाम/ Bhopal Room No.202, Vs. Metro Walk Bulding, Bitten Market, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Pan: Abafm6546L) (Revenue) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

reassessment proceedings following opportunities were given which are tabulated below:- Type Date Date Response Date Response Remarks Notice/ Notice/ Compliance of the Response (Full/part/ if any communication communication given assessee received adjournment received/ not received Notice u/s 148 30.06.2022 29.05.2022 Not - - - received Notice u/s 04.01.2023 19.01.2023 Not - - - 142(1) of the received Act Notice u/s 25.01.2023 03.02.2023 Received 08.02.2023 Part

SHAILESH KALWADIA (HUF) ,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BPL-C-(91)(1), UJJAIN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for sake of brevity] before this tribunal, as & by way of a second appeal .The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing No:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1075250428(1) dated 29.03.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein after referred

SHAILESH KALWADIA (HUF),UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BPL-C(91)(1), BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for sake of brevity] before this tribunal, as & by way of a second appeal .The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing No:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1075250428(1) dated 29.03.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein after referred

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

246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by “Impugned Page 8 of 20 Suresh Jat ITA No. 693/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2016-17 Order” has dismissed the first appeal of the assessee on the grounds & reasons stated therein. The core ground & reasons for the dismissed of first appeal are as under:- “5.3. Vide Grounds 4, 5 and 6, the Appellant

YOGESH SOOD,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

sections": ["147", "144/144B", "69C", "246A", "234A", "234B", "234C"], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity, and whether the reassessment