ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

36,25,687/- because the Ld. CIT(A) has not given exact working and basis of disallowable depreciation and the same cannot be worked out on the basis of figures available in various schedules and audit report filed electronically? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

36,25,687/- because the Ld. CIT(A) has not given exact working and basis of disallowable depreciation and the same cannot be worked out on the basis of figures available in various schedules and audit report filed electronically? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

36,25,687/- because the Ld. CIT(A) has not given exact working and basis of disallowable depreciation and the same cannot be worked out on the basis of figures available in various schedules and audit report filed electronically? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

36,25,687/- because the Ld. CIT(A) has not given exact working and basis of disallowable depreciation and the same cannot be worked out on the basis of figures available in various schedules and audit report filed electronically? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

36,25,687/- because the Ld. CIT(A) has not given exact working and basis of disallowable depreciation and the same cannot be worked out on the basis of figures available in various schedules and audit report filed electronically? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

36,25,687/- because the Ld. CIT(A) has not given exact working and basis of disallowable depreciation and the same cannot be worked out on the basis of figures available in various schedules and audit report filed electronically? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

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

reassess the same. However, if the assessment for any of the assessment years falling within 6 years has attained finally and not pending on the date of search then the same cannot be subjected to tax in the proceedings u/s 153A of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material gathered in the course of search and seizure operation

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

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. 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

SMT. MEHA JAIN,JALGAON vs. DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Meha Jain Dcit(Central) 40, Jay Nagar, Jilha Peth Bhopal Vs. Jalgaon Maharashtra (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aeipj 3170 N Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.05.2023

reassessment which was framed without first disposing of the objections raised by the appellant challenging the reasons to believe. Page 3 of 11 Meha Jain Page 4 of 11 4.The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the denial of loss of Rs. 6,36,138/- from trading in shares / derivatives and addition of deemed gross profit on alleged suppressed sales

BHARGAVI KESWANI,INDORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- II, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

reassess taking into consideration the\nother material in respect of completed assessments/unabated\nassessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated\nassessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of\nany incriminating material found during the course of search\nunder Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act,\n1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-\nopened

SANDHYA SINGH ,BHOPAL vs. ITO (2)(3), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Sandhya Singh Nfac, 121, Rohit Nagar, New Delhi बनाम/ Bawadia Kala, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aycps9215K Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari & Ms. Priyal Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

36 (Appeal Memo). Further, the assessee moved an application under Rule 11 of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 raising following additional grounds: “a) That the impugned notice, though dated 31/03/2021, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2014-15, was actually issued/served only on 01/04/2021 via email. As such, the notice is barred by limitation

ACIT (CENTRAL UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S ARIHANT FUTURE AND COMMODITIES LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

section 36(2)(i) is that such debt or part thereof has been taken into consideration in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which the amount of such debt or part thereof is written off or of an earlier previous year. I find that the appellant has duly met this requirement as well and also

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-UJJAIN, INDORE vs. M/S ARIHANT CAPITALS MARKETS LTD , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

section 36(2)(i) is that such debt or part thereof has been taken into consideration in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which the amount of such debt or part thereof is written off or of an earlier previous year. I find that the appellant has duly met this requirement as well and also

THE ACIT, CENTRAL - UJJAIN, INDORE vs. M/S ARIHANT FUTURE & COMMADITIES LTD , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

section 36(2)(i) is that such debt or part thereof has been taken into consideration in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which the amount of such debt or part thereof is written off or of an earlier previous year. I find that the appellant has duly met this requirement as well and also

M/S. SANWARIA AGROILS LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

reassessment can be initiated even if information may be obtained from record of original assessment. 14. The learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that assessment was reopened on the basis of audit objection, which is not permissible in law. In this regard we rely in the case of P. V. S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13, the Apex

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act. The Cross Objections of the assessee stand disposed off being allowed. Revenue’s Appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18, 2020- 21 and 2018-19: 11. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and submitted that section 80IB(11A) provides for deduction in the case of an undertaking deriving profit from