SITARAM MUCHHALA,MARDANA vs. ITO KHARGONE, KHARGONE

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

45, made to the income of the appellant. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 7,12,817/- under section 56, made to the income of the appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC Order dated

MAHENDRA KUMAR VERMA,INDORE vs. ITO-4(1), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 482/Ind/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) बनाम/ Mahendra Kumar Verma Ito-4(1) Flat No.301, Classic Indore Vs. Dream, 5-6, Paliwal Nagar, Indore (M.P.) -452011 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acspv2701P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri S. N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mongra, A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr 17/04/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 even when reopening was done without obtaining proper sanction from the competent authority as mandated by the provisions of section 151 of the Act 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition

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

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

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

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 in a manner to make inquiries unending. Ld. AR has thus contended that when the AO has examined the issue, applied his mind and reached to a conclusion which is legally possible view then the commissioner cannot be invoke

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

Appeal is allowed

Section 151 (ii) of the Act. The revenue cannot\ndispute the fact that identical issue was decided against the\nDepartment in the case of Siemens Financial Services (P)Ltd. Vs.\nDeputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (2023) 155 taxmann.com 159\n(Bombay). This Court also had an occasion to consider similar issue\nin (2024) 159 taxmann.com 5 (Bombay). The decision

RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 5, SEHORE, SEHORE

In the result, the impugned order is set aside as & by way of\nremand back to the file of the Ld

section 249(2) of the IT Act, the\nsame is not admitted.\n4. In view of the above facts, the appeal is dismissed for\nstatistical purpose and not required to be adjudicated on\nmerits.\n5. In result, the appeal is disposed off.\"\n2.5 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Order\"\nhas preferred the instant second appeal before this

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

reassessment by invoking the provisions of section 263 may kindly be dropped. Without prejudice to the above as far as merit of the issues reaised in show-cause notice in question are concerned, we have to submit that the learned Assessing Officer has issued notices u/s 133(6) in loan creditor companies (supra). That after getting the requisite details

RAJ KUMAR PALIA,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - ITARSI, CAMP AT BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2009-10 Raj Kumar Paliya Dcit/Acit M/S. Da Construction

45,575/-and the claim of the assessee is allowed. The AR has also submitted details of payments made of Rs. 3,01,083/- to various parties, However, no supporting bills/vouchers were presented. The AR has submitted that these payments were for vehicle hiring charges. The AR has not clarified as to whether such charges for hiring vehicle on rent

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

reassessment if any relating to any relevant assessment year or years referred to in this subsection pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be shall abate.” This makes it further abundantly clear that only those assessments which are pending abate. Hence sanguine provisions

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

reassessment if any relating to any relevant assessment year or years referred to in this subsection pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be shall abate.” This makes it further abundantly clear that only those assessments which are pending abate. Hence sanguine provisions

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

reassessment if any relating to any relevant assessment year or years referred to in this subsection pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be shall abate.” This makes it further abundantly clear that only those assessments which are pending abate. Hence sanguine provisions

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

reassessment if any relating to any relevant assessment year or years referred to in this subsection pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be shall abate.” This makes it further abundantly clear that only those assessments which are pending abate. Hence sanguine provisions

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

section 153A, the Assessing Officer is required to assess or reassess the total income of an assessee. We also find that the expression ‘total income’ has been defined under clause (45

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

section 153A, the Assessing Officer is required to assess or reassess the total income of an assessee. We also find that the expression ‘total income’ has been defined under clause (45