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

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

Appeal is allowed

1) [1989] 177 ITR 124. Disallowance\nunder Section 37(4) of the Act in respect of the Guest houses was restricted to\nmaintenance expenses of Rs.91,485/-. An order of assessment was passed\nby the Assessing Officer on 17th November 1989, wherein upon making\nadditions and disallowances the taxable income was determined at Rs.\n21,14,082/-. A claim

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