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

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

ASSISSTANT 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

ASSISSTANT 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

ASSISSTANT 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

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

Appeal is allowed

reassessment order. Once, the\nreassessment order per se framed by the Ld. AO is not sustainable in the eyes\nof law, any revision order passed thereon u/s 263 seeking to revise such\nunsustainable order cannot be accepted in the eyes of law and consequential\nrevision order also passed u/s 263 of the Act deserves to be quashed. Our\nview

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

reassessment proceedings. We are unable to accept that is the true position in law. In our opinion the decision of the Andra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bavuri V. Narasimhan, (1) relied on by the assessee was not correctly decided. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow these appeals, vacate the answers given by the High

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

reassessment proceedings. We are unable to accept that is the true position in law. In our opinion the decision of the Andra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bavuri V. Narasimhan, (1) relied on by the assessee was not correctly decided. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow these appeals, vacate the answers given by the High

SUNIL,INDORE vs. ITO 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

44,65,800/-, initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147. Despite multiple notices, the assessee did not comply. The AO made

JAGDISH SOLANKI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER JHABUA, JHABUA

Appeal is dismissed

reassess the Petitioner's income.\n17. For the above reasons, we dismiss this Petition.\"\n[emphasis supplied]\n15. Ld. DR compared the facts of above case before Hon'ble Bombay High Court with the facts of present assessee's case and successfully demonstrated there are exactly same set of facts and, therefore, in the light of decision

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

44 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others by the Assessing Officer on account of receipts not disclosed in income shown by the assessee. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in law in deleting the addition amounting to Rs. 7,42,880/- made by the Assessing Officer

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

44 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others by the Assessing Officer on account of receipts not disclosed in income shown by the assessee. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in law in deleting the addition amounting to Rs. 7,42,880/- made by the Assessing Officer

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

44 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others by the Assessing Officer on account of receipts not disclosed in income shown by the assessee. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in law in deleting the addition amounting to Rs. 7,42,880/- made by the Assessing Officer

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1) RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

44 of 66 Society appear provision of Section 27(iib) of the Act which reads as under:-27. "Owner of the house property", "annual charge", etc., defined.- For the purposes of sections 22 to 26-- "** ** ** (iiib) a person who acquires any rights (excluding any rights by way of a lease from month to month or for a period not exceeding

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

44 of 66 Society appear provision of Section 27(iib) of the Act which reads as under:-27. "Owner of the house property", "annual charge", etc., defined.- For the purposes of sections 22 to 26-- "** ** ** (iiib) a person who acquires any rights (excluding any rights by way of a lease from month to month or for a period not exceeding

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

44 of 66 Society appear provision of Section 27(iib) of the Act which reads as under:-27. "Owner of the house property", "annual charge", etc., defined.- For the purposes of sections 22 to 26-- "** ** ** (iiib) a person who acquires any rights (excluding any rights by way of a lease from month to month or for a period not exceeding

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

44 of 66 Society appear provision of Section 27(iib) of the Act which reads as under:-27. "Owner of the house property", "annual charge", etc., defined.- For the purposes of sections 22 to 26-- "** ** ** (iiib) a person who acquires any rights (excluding any rights by way of a lease from month to month or for a period not exceeding

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

44 of 66 Society appear provision of Section 27(iib) of the Act which reads as under:-27. "Owner of the house property", "annual charge", etc., defined.- For the purposes of sections 22 to 26-- "** ** ** (iiib) a person who acquires any rights (excluding any rights by way of a lease from month to month or for a period not exceeding