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

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

RNG CONSTRUCTION CO,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL.,JT.,DY.,ASSTT.ITO, BHOPAL

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

256(2) of the Act. XXX 22. We are unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Jolly to the effect that the impugned order of reassessment cannot be faulted as the same was based on information derived from the tax audit report. The tax audit report has already been submitted by the assessee. It is one thing

M/S. BHANDARI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

256(2) of the Act before this court which was allowed. That is how the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that this reference must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. It is well

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

section 143(2) read with decision of Delhi High Court. 3.That in any case and in any view of the matter, reassessment order ought to have been held as nullity by Hon’ble CIT(A). 4. That the cross objector craves the leave to add, amend, modify deleted any of the grounds of cross objection before or at the time

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

256 ITR 1 (Del) observed at page no. 15 that “it is well settled principle of law that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly”. 3.02 On the similar issue, the Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Shri Mohan Thakur vs. ACIT 2020 (1) TMI 558 (ITAT Mumbai) has held that the proceedings under s.153C have

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

256 ITR 1 (Del) observed at page no. 15 that “it is well settled principle of law that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly”. 3.02 On the similar issue, the Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Shri Mohan Thakur vs. ACIT 2020 (1) TMI 558 (ITAT Mumbai) has held that the proceedings under s.153C have

SHRI PURSHOTTAM KHATRI , BHOPAL vs. ITO 3(3), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2009-10

1 & 2 are against the validity of reopening of the assessment. 6. Apropos ground No.1 Ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written submissions. It is contended that as per the AIR information assessee had sold immovable property valued at Rs.30,00,000/- and more during

M/S. INDORE PARASPAR SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-I(I), INDORE

In the result this common issue is decided in favour of the assessee and the relevant grounds raised in Assessment Year 2008-09 to Assessment Year 2012-13 in I

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

1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the re-opening of assessment when all necessary facts were disclosed in the return and during the course of the assessment proceedings. The reopening u/s 147/148 is bad in law and hence the assessment be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.16

M/S INDORE PARASPAR SAHKARI BANK LTD. ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2 (5) , INDORE

In the result this common issue is decided in favour of the assessee and the relevant grounds raised in Assessment Year 2008-09 to Assessment Year 2012-13 in I

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

1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the re-opening of assessment when all necessary facts were disclosed in the return and during the course of the assessment proceedings. The reopening u/s 147/148 is bad in law and hence the assessment be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.16