M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

63 taxmann.com 297 (Hyderabad Tribunal.). 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the facts of the present case and the case-laws relied upon by the parties. We find that assessee’s activities have not been changed at all since the date of its inception and the assessee was fully eligible for exemption

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

63,660/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE made by AO to the returned income of assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but did not get success. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 3. The assessee has raised several grounds in Form No. 36 (Appeal Memo). Further, the assessee moved an application under Rule

RNG CONSTRUCTION CO,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL.,JT.,DY.,ASSTT.ITO, BHOPAL

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

63,603/- Total under assessment is to the tune of Rs.43,91,603/-. The case is covered Under Section 147. Notice Under Section 148 is issued." The assesse objected to the said reopening of the assessment. However, an order of re-assessment was passed on 24th September 1990 determining the total income at Rs.23,56,523/-, whereby

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

63,36,317 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the most of the additions made by the Ld. AO. Hence, the instant appeal has been filed before this Tribunal. 7. Before us, the Ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the order

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

63,36,317 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the most of the additions made by the Ld. AO. Hence, the instant appeal has been filed before this Tribunal. 7. Before us, the Ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the order

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

63,36,317 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the most of the additions made by the Ld. AO. Hence, the instant appeal has been filed before this Tribunal. 7. Before us, the Ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the order

THE ACIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result appeals of the revenue & assessee are

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

63,500/- Rs.1,43,000/- & Rs.5,01,500/- on account of unexplained receipt on protective basis without appreciating the facts and evidences brought into light by the AO during the assessment proceedings.” IT(SS)A Nos.100 & 105/Ind/16 (Pankaj Kalani & Dipak Kalani): “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

DCIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result appeals of the revenue & assessee are

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

63,500/- Rs.1,43,000/- & Rs.5,01,500/- on account of unexplained receipt on protective basis without appreciating the facts and evidences brought into light by the AO during the assessment proceedings.” IT(SS)A Nos.100 & 105/Ind/16 (Pankaj Kalani & Dipak Kalani): “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD., INDORE

In the result appeals of the revenue & assessee are

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

63,500/- Rs.1,43,000/- & Rs.5,01,500/- on account of unexplained receipt on protective basis without appreciating the facts and evidences brought into light by the AO during the assessment proceedings.” IT(SS)A Nos.100 & 105/Ind/16 (Pankaj Kalani & Dipak Kalani): “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

DCIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result appeals of the revenue & assessee are

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

63,500/- Rs.1,43,000/- & Rs.5,01,500/- on account of unexplained receipt on protective basis without appreciating the facts and evidences brought into light by the AO during the assessment proceedings.” IT(SS)A Nos.100 & 105/Ind/16 (Pankaj Kalani & Dipak Kalani): “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

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

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

SHRI SHANTILALYADAV,KHARGONE vs. THE ITO , KHATGONE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Shantilal Yadav Ito, Khargone Gram Nagziri, बनाम/ Tehsil Gogawa, Vs. Khargone (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aiwpy 0915 C Assessee By Shri S. N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

Reassessment cannot be made on mere suspicion. The Assessing Officer has to form a belief that income has escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee. Once it has been held that such investment belonged to Shri G.P. Goyal, then there was no further material to come to the conclusion that such escaped income belonged to the assessee

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated or not inasmuch as on merit itself we have decided that such an addition was not proper. 9. The Assessing Officer thereafter took into consideration the rent/licence fee, which was paid by the occupiers to the sub-licensees to whom the assessee had sub-licensed the premises. The Assessing Officer on that basis calculated first care

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated or not inasmuch as on merit itself we have decided that such an addition was not proper. 9. The Assessing Officer thereafter took into consideration the rent/licence fee, which was paid by the occupiers to the sub-licensees to whom the assessee had sub-licensed the premises. The Assessing Officer on that basis calculated first care

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated or not inasmuch as on merit itself we have decided that such an addition was not proper. 9. The Assessing Officer thereafter took into consideration the rent/licence fee, which was paid by the occupiers to the sub-licensees to whom the assessee had sub-licensed the premises. The Assessing Officer on that basis calculated first care

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated or not inasmuch as on merit itself we have decided that such an addition was not proper. 9. The Assessing Officer thereafter took into consideration the rent/licence fee, which was paid by the occupiers to the sub-licensees to whom the assessee had sub-licensed the premises. The Assessing Officer on that basis calculated first care