DEEPAK KHANDELWAL,SEHORE vs. ITO, SEHORE, SEHORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanideepak Khandelwal Ito J.P. Market, Narsullaganj Sehore Vs. Sehore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agxpk7517R Assessee By Shri N.D. Patwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05.07.2024

reassessment proceedings does Page 4 of 9 ITANo.120/Ind/2024 Deepak Khandelwal not attract provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. In the latest

PUSHPENDRA SINGH CHOUHAN,SEHORE vs. ITO-SEHORE, SEHORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Pushpendra Singh Ito Chouhan, Sehore C/O Adv.Hitesh Chimnani, Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18 South Tukoganj, Near Hotel Crown Palace, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cggps1953Q Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ms. Komal Wadhwani & Komal Kataria, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R

Section 249(4) of the Act will not apply as there is no question of payment of advance tax in reassessment

HARSH PATEL,GRAM PADLIYA TEHSIL DEPALPURDI vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniharsh Patel Ito -1(1) Gram -Padliya Tehsil- Depalpur Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bmfpp8078K Assessee By Shri Avinash Mandovara, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28 .06.2024

Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. This is a case of reassessment framed by Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s

MANOJ KUMAR MOTWANI,BETUL MP vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER , INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NFAC

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2013-14 Manoj Kumar Motwani, Acit, Prop. Neelam Store, Nfac, Lally Chowk, Delhi बनाम/ Kothi Bazar, Vs. Betul (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaupm8830E Assessee By Shri Rakesh Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2024

Section 249(4) of Page 4 of 9 Shri Manoj Kumar Motwani, Betul vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi ITA No. 151/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2013-14 the Act will not apply as there is no question of paying advance tax in reassessment

AKHILESH KUMAR PATEL,SHAHDOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER DHAR, DHAR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

reassessment which is done for the\nbenefit of Revenue. Hence, in our view, clause (b) of Section 249(4) of\nthe

RITIKA JAIN,THANE vs. ITO(IT TP), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAVAN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiritika Jain, Cit (Appeals), बना A-504, Laxmi Residency Chs Nfac, म/ Ltd, Delhi Vs. Opposite Datta Mandir Check Naka, Wagle Estate, Thane

Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. This is a case of reassessment framed by Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s

ANKIT SHARMA,TULSIDAS MARG, BARWANI (M.P.) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SENDHWA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, A.B. ROAD, SENDHWA, DISTRICT-BARWANI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2015-16 Shri Ankit Sharma, Income-Tax Officer, 5,Tulsidas Marg, Ward Sendhwa, Gali No. 1, Distt. Barwani बनाम/ Ward No. 20, Vs. Barwani. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Hgzps8737L Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.08.2024

Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. This is a case of reassessment framed by Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s

REKHA KHANDELWAL,RAJGARH vs. ITO WARD RAJGARH, RAJGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Rekha Khandelwal, Income-Tax Officer, Ward No.2, Near Chote Ward Rajgarh Hanuman Mandir, बनाम/ Rajgarh Bus Stand Vs. S.O. Rajgarh, (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Eljpk1548B Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. This is a case of reassessment framed by Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s

SURESH PATEL,DEWAS vs. CIT(A) ,NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

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

Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. This is a case of reassessment framed by Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s

SURESH PATEL,DEWAS vs. CIT(A),NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

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

Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. This is a case of reassessment framed by Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed’’. 5. In the earlier case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) their lordship had observed as under

ANJU JAIN, LR SHRI SUSHIL JAIN ,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed’’. 5. In the earlier case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) their lordship had observed as under

ANJU JAIN, LR SUSHIL JAIN,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed’’. 5. In the earlier case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) their lordship had observed as under

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed’’. 5. In the earlier case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) their lordship had observed as under

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 85,87,725/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 312/Ind/2018 – AY 2012-13: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 85,87,725/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 312/Ind/2018 – AY 2012-13: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 85,87,725/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 312/Ind/2018 – AY 2012-13: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 85,87,725/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 312/Ind/2018 – AY 2012-13: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances