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

section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 were served only on the E-Mail ID of the appellant and were never served physically at the registered address of the appellant. As stated above, the appellant complied with all the notices issued time-to-time Page 2 of 21 Bhawani Shankar Page 3 of 21 during the course of reassessment

SANTOSH RATHORE,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Section 263 of the Act without appreciating that the reassessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.\"\nThe background facts leading to present appeal are as under:\n(i)\nThe assessee filed original return of AY 2015-16 on 31.03.2016 u/s 139 declaring a total income of Rs.24,96,000/- which was assessed.\nSantosh Rathore

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

LATE SMT SUSHILA BISARYA, BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, we are Shri Jignesh Lilachand Shah vs

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanilate Smt. Sushila Bisarya Pr. Cit-1 L.H. Pramod Bisarya Bhopal Vs. 125 Malviya Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aewpb 2587 D Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.08.2023

reassessment was framed on 31st July 2017 accepting income declared in the original return of income. Thereafter the Pr. CIT on perusal of the assessment record noticed that the assesse has constructed a multi-story building in the areas of 1781 sq. ft. out of 5,400 sq. ft. of a Page 1 of 18 Smt. Sushila Bisarya Page 2

SHRI PREMNARAYAN,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and directing the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment de-novo after examining whether the agricultural land sold by the appellant was a capital asset as per the provisions of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act even when the said issue was duly examined by the Assessing Officer at the time

SMT. SHARDA,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and directing the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment de-novo after examining whether the agricultural land sold by the appellant was a capital asset as per the provisions of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act even when the said issue was duly examined by the Assessing Officer at the time

NARENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,BURHANPUR vs. PCIT INDORE-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninarendra Kumar Agrawal Pcit (1) 203, Ck Campus Aaykar Bhawan Bahadarpur Road Vs. Indore Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adapa0131B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024

reassessment proceedings then the explanation (2) to section 263 cannot be Page 6 of 27 ITANo.345/Ind/2024 Narendra Kumar Agrawal interpreted

S GANDHI JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18 S. Gandhi Jewellery Pcit-1, Private Limited, Indore C/O Adv. Hitesh Chimnani, बनाम/ Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18, South Tukoganj, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aamcs1613G Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person.” 5. Having explained the basis of revision done by PCIT, Ld. AR strongly contended that the Ld. PCIT is very

M/S M.P.WAREHOUSING & LOGISTIC CORPORATION,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S M.P. Warehousing Pr. Cit-1 & Logistic Corporation, Bhopal बनाम/ Office Complex, Block-1, Gautam Nagar, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aadcm 7742 B Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

2 – “For the purpose of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, if in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner - (a) The order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have

ANAMIKA GARG ,DEWAS vs. CIT, UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Anamika Garg, Pcit, 117, Tukoganj Marg, Ujjain बनाम/ Nayapura, Vs. Dewas (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aiwpg 3922 D Assessee By Shri Suresh Gupta, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

2 of 7 Smt. Anamika Garg, Dewas v. PCIT,Ujjain ITA No.214/Ind/2020 - Assessment year 2015-16 assessment-proceeding; it is the AO who has mooted the proposal for revision by PCIT. Ld. AR strongly contended that the PCIT has not called for and examined the record of assessment-proceeding done by AO as required by section 263

M/S DBL JAORA SAIANA TOLLWAYA LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

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

reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out Page 8 of 10 M/s DBL vs. Pr. CIT I, Bhopal ITA Nos. 144 to 147/Ind/2020 Assessment year 2015-16 rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can’t usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision. No overlapping of powers of the authorities under

M/S DBL TIKAAMGARH NOWGON,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT -1, BHOPAL

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

reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out Page 8 of 10 M/s DBL vs. Pr. CIT I, Bhopal ITA Nos. 144 to 147/Ind/2020 Assessment year 2015-16 rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can’t usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision. No overlapping of powers of the authorities under

M/S DBL BETUL SARMI TOLLWAYAS,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, INDORE

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

reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out Page 8 of 10 M/s DBL vs. Pr. CIT I, Bhopal ITA Nos. 144 to 147/Ind/2020 Assessment year 2015-16 rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can’t usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision. No overlapping of powers of the authorities under

M/S DBL ASHOKNAGAR VIDISHA TOLLWAYS LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

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

reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out Page 8 of 10 M/s DBL vs. Pr. CIT I, Bhopal ITA Nos. 144 to 147/Ind/2020 Assessment year 2015-16 rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can’t usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision. No overlapping of powers of the authorities under

CHANDMAL HUKUMCHAND JAIN,KHANDWA vs. PCIT -1 , INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Chandmal Hukumchand Pcit-1, Jain, Indore Kahan Nagar, Opp.Prakash Nursing Home, Vs. Indore Road, Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaahj6475Q Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijaywargia, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2024 O R D E R

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. Pr.CIT-1, Indore has erred in invoking provisions of Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 by blatantly ignoring the jurisdictional judicial pronouncements in favour of the assesse on merits of this case. The action of Ld. Pr.CIT-1, Indore was wholly unreasonable, uncalled

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained