OM PRAKASH RATHI,RAJGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT 2 (1), UJJAIN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

section 250(6). Therefore,\nthe impugned first appeal-order passed by Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set\nOm Prakash Rathi\nITA No. 457/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13\naside and the matter is fit for restoring to him for a proper adjudication. In\nso far as the reason of non-prosecution by assessee is concerned, Ld. AR\ncarried us to Para

JASTEJ GOROWARA,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment, the CIT(Appeals) concurred with the Assessing Officer and held that the ITA Nos. 276&277/Ind/2025 Jastej Gorowara vs. CIT(A) A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2015-16 reopening was validly initiated after recording reasons and obtaining due approval, and that the assessee had failed to substantiate any infirmity in the reopening proceedings. On the substantive ground relating to addition

JASTEJ GOROWARA,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment, the CIT(Appeals) concurred with the Assessing Officer and held that the ITA Nos. 276&277/Ind/2025 Jastej Gorowara vs. CIT(A) A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2015-16 reopening was validly initiated after recording reasons and obtaining due approval, and that the assessee had failed to substantiate any infirmity in the reopening proceedings. On the substantive ground relating to addition

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

ATUL BANSAL,INDORE vs. ADDITIONA, JOIN, DEPUTY, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX OFFICER NFAC DELHI, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

250(6). Therefore,\nthe impugned first appeal-order passed by Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set\naside.\n4. Having explained thus, Ld. AR went ahead to make submissions qua\nthe sources of deposits available to assessee. In so far as the first source of\nbusiness turnover/receipts having been deposited is concerned, Ld. AR drew\nus to Page

SHRI PANKAJ KALANI,INDORE vs. THE JCIT, OSD (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2012-13

6,25,000/- under section 271AAA of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 deserves to be quashed. 1.4.1] The aforesaid issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Gillco Developers and Builders (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Chandigarh as reported in [2017] 85 taxmann.com

SHRI DIPAK KALANI,INDORE vs. THE JCIT,OSD, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2012-13

6,25,000/- under section 271AAA of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 deserves to be quashed. 1.4.1] The aforesaid issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Gillco Developers and Builders (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Chandigarh as reported in [2017] 85 taxmann.com

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

250/-. The return was originally processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). Subsequently, based on information available with the Department that substantial amounts were credited in various bank accounts linked to the assessee’s PAN, which were disproportionate to the income disclosed in the return, the case was reopened under section

MAHENDRA KUMAR VERMA,INDORE vs. ITO-4(1), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 482/Ind/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) बनाम/ Mahendra Kumar Verma Ito-4(1) Flat No.301, Classic Indore Vs. Dream, 5-6, Paliwal Nagar, Indore (M.P.) -452011 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acspv2701P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri S. N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mongra, A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr 17/04/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14. ITA No. 482/Ind/2024 [Mahendra Kumar Verma vs. ITO] A.Y. 2013-14 - 2 – 2. The grounds raised in the appeal by the assessee are as under: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ANISH KUMAR JAISWAL,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DEWAS

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

6)\nThe appellant\nThe respondent\nCIT\nCIT(A)\nDepartmental Representative\nGuard File\nBy order\nSenior Private Secretary\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nIndore Bench, Indore", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee's income was computed under Section 144 for AY 2010-11. Subsequently, a reassessment proceeding was initiated under Section 147/148 based on AIR information showing a cash deposit of Rs.22

MANISH KUMAR AGRAWAL,NEEMUCH vs. NFAC,DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

sections": [ "147", "144B", "68", "148", "250(6)" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the assessee's grounds and submissions, particularly concerning the legality of the reassessment

SHRI ARVIND KUMAR SINGH ,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment order dated 31.12.2009 stating that his claim for deduction under Section 54 of the Act should be accepted. 23. Therefore, in the process of considering as to what relief the assessee is entitled to, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 54F of the Act and assigned certain reasons for that. Therefore

SHRI ARVIND KUMAR SINGH ,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment order dated 31.12.2009 stating that his claim for deduction under Section 54 of the Act should be accepted. 23. Therefore, in the process of considering as to what relief the assessee is entitled to, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 54F of the Act and assigned certain reasons for that. Therefore

SHRI ARVIND KUMAR SINGH ,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment order dated 31.12.2009 stating that his claim for deduction under Section 54 of the Act should be accepted. 23. Therefore, in the process of considering as to what relief the assessee is entitled to, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 54F of the Act and assigned certain reasons for that. Therefore

SHRI ARVIND KUMAR SINGH ,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment order dated 31.12.2009 stating that his claim for deduction under Section 54 of the Act should be accepted. 23. Therefore, in the process of considering as to what relief the assessee is entitled to, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 54F of the Act and assigned certain reasons for that. Therefore

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

Appeal is allowed

250,\nSagar Plaza, Zone II, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal on 28.11.2016. At the time of survey\nPage 5 of 33\nSanjeev Agrawal\nITA No. 38/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18\nproceedings a hand written document was found from the iphone of the\nassessee. During verification, it was found that Shri Sanjeev Agrawal has\nmade unaccounted investment in purchase of 11 acres of land

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