M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

293 ITR 464 as well as in the case of DCIT vs. Turquoise Investment & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 143 (MP). On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR opposed the request for admission of addl. ground but could not controvert the submission of the assessee by bringing any contrary material on record. 5. Considering the above facts and considering

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

293 ITR 464 as well as in the case of DCIT vs. Turquoise Investment & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 143 (MP). On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR opposed the request for admission of addl. ground but could not controvert the submission of the assessee by bringing any contrary material on record. 5. Considering the above facts and considering

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S FERRO CONCREATE CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT. LTD INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

293 ITR 464 as well as in the case of DCIT vs. Turquoise Investment & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 143 (MP). On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR opposed the request for admission of addl. ground but could not controvert the submission of the assessee by bringing any contrary material on record. 5. Considering the above facts and considering

SARTHAK REAL BUILT PVT. LTD, ,INDORE vs. DY, CIT,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

293 ITR 464 as well as in the case of DCIT vs. Turquoise Investment & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 143 (MP). On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR opposed the request for admission of addl. ground but could not controvert the submission of the assessee by bringing any contrary material on record. 5. Considering the above facts and considering

BHOLA SINGH THAKUR,INDORE vs. I T O 4(1), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

293 ITR 464 as well as in the case of DCIT vs. Turquoise Investment & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 143. M/s. Bhola Singh Thakur. 7. For the proposition that the Hon'ble I.T.A.T., was justified in allowing to raise the issue of legal ground for non issuance of notice u/s 143(2) for the first time and that section 292BB

SUNAYANA INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD,INDORE vs. PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisunayana Investment Company Pcit-1, Ltd, Indore Part-B Of 417 Chetak Centre Annex, Vs. R.N.T. Marg, Near Hotel Shreemaya, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaucs5765M Assessee By Shri Sohit Gupta & Ms. Alifiya Ali, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.10.2024 O R D E R

Section 263 of the Act on two issues i.e. the accommodation entries received from Shri Jignesh Shah & Sanjay Shah as well as a new issue regarding the accommodation entries taken by the assessee of Rs.5,00,000/- taken from M/s Orange Mist Production Pvt. Ltd . The AR has pointed out that the second issue as taken up by the PCIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI NEERAJ MANDLOI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

reassessment could have be done only u/s 153C and not u/s 147 and thus the impugned assessment order was liable to be quashed as being without Shri Neeraj Mandloi ITA No.680/Ind/2020 & C.O.No.04/Ind/2020 jurisdiction. 3.That the Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that section 153 C overrides section 147/148 and thus proceedings which are initiated pursuant to document seized under