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

reassessed on 29.12.2016. We therefore proceed to adjudicate this common issue raised by the revenue on the basis of facts for Assessment Year 2013-14 to which both the parties have agreed. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in development of colony. The assessee purchases lands develops and sells

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

reassessed on 29.12.2016. We therefore proceed to adjudicate this common issue raised by the revenue on the basis of facts for Assessment Year 2013-14 to which both the parties have agreed. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in development of colony. The assessee purchases lands develops and sells

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

60 taxmann.com 296 (Gujarat) (vi) Martech Peripherals (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 73 (Madras) (vii) Mgm Exports v. DCIT [2010] 323 ITR 331 (Gujarat) (viii) Rabo India Finance Ltd. v. DCIT [2012] 27 taxmann.com 163 (Bombay) (ix) Vishwanath Engineers v. ACIT [2012] 21 taxmann.com 5 (Gujarat) Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel contended that reassessment proceedings initiated in the case

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

60 taxmann.com 296 (Gujarat) (vi) Martech Peripherals (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 73 (Madras) (vii) Mgm Exports v. DCIT [2010] 323 ITR 331 (Gujarat) (viii) Rabo India Finance Ltd. v. DCIT [2012] 27 taxmann.com 163 (Bombay) (ix) Vishwanath Engineers v. ACIT [2012] 21 taxmann.com 5 (Gujarat) Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel contended that reassessment proceedings initiated in the case

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

60 taxmann.com 296 (Gujarat) (vi) Martech Peripherals (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 73 (Madras) (vii) Mgm Exports v. DCIT [2010] 323 ITR 331 (Gujarat) (viii) Rabo India Finance Ltd. v. DCIT [2012] 27 taxmann.com 163 (Bombay) (ix) Vishwanath Engineers v. ACIT [2012] 21 taxmann.com 5 (Gujarat) Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel contended that reassessment proceedings initiated in the case

JAYANTILAL SANGHVI,INDORE vs. ACIT 4(1), INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Jayantilal Sanghvi, Acit, 8/10, Warehouse Road, 4(1), बनाम/ Patel Bridge, Indore. Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Agtps5825Q Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, C.A. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2024

reassessment order dated 13-12- 2016 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, there is a reference to the fact that previously section 143(3) assessment order had been framed on 24-12-2011. (iii) Lastly and more importantly, the reopening was triggered, based on a statement made by one Mr Sanjeeva Kumar Sinha, Director

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

60,864/- is disallowed.” Paras relevant to the issue of Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia): “The Hon'ble ITAT in its order has stated that if it is found that the payments to individuals does not exceed Rs 1.2 lakhs during the financial year, then he may consider the same in accordance with law. The AR has submitted list

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

reassessment framed by the AO u/s 147 r.w. section 143(3) without a valid notice u/s 143(2) is not valid and liable to be quashed as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362. 7. The next objection of the assessee is against the validity of the order passed

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

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

reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

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

reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained

SMT MANORAMA SINGHAL,INDORE vs. ITO-3(2), INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Years: 2013-14

Section 69 of the Act amounting to RS.3646175 based on dumb documents without any cogent evidences and following principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Appellant prays that the said addition be deleted. 6.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer determining total income at Rs.4526530/as

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

60% of the “undisclosed income” and the term “undisclosed income” has also been defined by Parliament in the Explanation to section 271AAB itself. The said Explanation prescribes “For the purposes of this section, ….. (c) “undisclosed income” means …..”. Thereafter, the term “undisclosed income” is defined, in clause (c) of the Explanation to mean (i) any income represented by any money, bullion

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

60% of the “undisclosed income” and the term “undisclosed income” has also been defined by Parliament in the Explanation to section 271AAB itself. The said Explanation prescribes “For the purposes of this section, ….. (c) “undisclosed income” means …..”. Thereafter, the term “undisclosed income” is defined, in clause (c) of the Explanation to mean (i) any income represented by any money, bullion

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

60% of the “undisclosed income” and the term “undisclosed income” has also been defined by Parliament in the Explanation to section 271AAB itself. The said Explanation prescribes “For the purposes of this section, ….. (c) “undisclosed income” means …..”. Thereafter, the term “undisclosed income” is defined, in clause (c) of the Explanation to mean (i) any income represented by any money, bullion

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

60% of the “undisclosed income” and the term “undisclosed income” has also been defined by Parliament in the Explanation to section 271AAB itself. The said Explanation prescribes “For the purposes of this section, ….. (c) “undisclosed income” means …..”. Thereafter, the term “undisclosed income” is defined, in clause (c) of the Explanation to mean (i) any income represented by any money, bullion