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

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

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

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

ONEEL VERMA,NASHIK vs. ITO-5(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

6, Archit Enclave Vs Kotwal Park, Near Swimming Pool, Trimbak Road, Nasik, Maharashtra-422002 (Respondent) PAN No: ABTPV9828M (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri Devendra Jain, Adv. Respondent by : Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 18-12-2025 Date of pronouncement : s21-01-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee

RITIKA JAIN,THANE vs. ITO(IT TP), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAVAN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiritika Jain, Cit (Appeals), बना A-504, Laxmi Residency Chs Nfac, म/ Ltd, Delhi Vs. Opposite Datta Mandir Check Naka, Wagle Estate, Thane

reassessment order. Therefore, for filing the appeal before CIT(A) the question of payment of advance tax by the assessee as per clause(b) of Sub Section 4 of Section 249 does not arise. Similarly the Raipur Bench of the Tribunal in case of Vishnusharan Chandravanshi Vs. ITO in ITA No.73/RPR/2024 order dated 10.04.2024 has also considered the identical issue

SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SAHU,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 250(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not giving a notice to the Assessing Officer of the date and place for the hearing the appeal, 2. Not following the provisions of section 250(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard at the hearing of the appeal

BIRENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,GWALIOR vs. ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 250(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not giving a notice to the Assessing Officer of the date and place for the hearing the appeal, 2. Not following the provisions of section 250(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard at the hearing of the appeal

SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA,DABRA vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 250(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not giving a notice to the Assessing Officer of the date and place for the hearing the appeal, 2. Not following the provisions of section 250(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard at the hearing of the appeal

SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 250(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not giving a notice to the Assessing Officer of the date and place for the hearing the appeal, 2. Not following the provisions of section 250(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard at the hearing of the appeal