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

reassessment cannot be declared invalid in the penalty proceedings’’. View taken by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the above judgment was indirectly affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, when it dismissed an SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgment in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows (supra), specifically observing that there was no merits

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

reassessment cannot be declared invalid in the penalty proceedings’’. View taken by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the above judgment was indirectly affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, when it dismissed an SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgment in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows (supra), specifically observing that there was no merits

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

1) can be taken as twin conditions viz order must be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue must be satisfied simultaneously. Thus if any order so passed is proved to be non- erroneous one then provisions of section 263 cannot be invoked even if the same is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

1) Plot No.04, New Industrial Area Bhopal Vs. Mandideep (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AABCR5783R Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal, and N.D. Patwa, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 30.04.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM : These three appeals by assessee are directed against the three separate

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

1) Plot No.04, New Industrial Area Bhopal Vs. Mandideep (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AABCR5783R Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal, and N.D. Patwa, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 30.04.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM : These three appeals by assessee are directed against the three separate

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

1) Plot No.04, New Industrial Area Bhopal Vs. Mandideep (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AABCR5783R Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal, and N.D. Patwa, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 30.04.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM : These three appeals by assessee are directed against the three separate

SANJEEV AGRAWAL ,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

65,86,27,200-\n10.80×43560×1400\nLess. Advance Adjusted fooon Partners\n= 10,57,00,000-\nBalance\n= 55.2927,200r\nShare of Sanjeev Agrawal@30-% = 16,58781601\nless - first installonen가\n= Spopopoor\n4/10 13/05/2016\nBalance Receivable\n= 11,58,78,160r\nless - Second Installment\nupto 11/08/2016\nAlready paid to Kriplaniti\n= 325,00000\nBalance Payable 01/10 11/08/2016

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

65,125/-. The\npenalty u/s 271AAC(1) is being imposed after the prior\napproval of the Competent Authority i.e Range Head as\nper the provisions laid down in Section 274(2) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961. This demand should be paid as\nper the demand notice enclosed.\"\n2.2\nThat the assessee being Aggrieved by the aforesaid\n\"Impugned Penalty

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

65,800/-, initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147. Despite multiple notices, the assessee did not comply. The AO made an ex-parte assessment under Section 144, treating the deposit as unexplained cash credit under Section 68.", "held": "The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to present

ARCPL DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

65,83,363/-.\n3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A) on\nas many as 9 grounds as re-produced by CIT(A) in Para 3 of impugned order.\nDuring pendency of first appellate proceedings before CIT(A), the matter of\nassessee reached to NCLT, Indore Bench in IA/12

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

65,000 Ltd 70,00,000 6,99,999 4. Enarzier Commerce Pvt. ECPL 85,585 30,576 2,85,615 Ltd. 10,00,000 46,00,000 5,60,001 5. Galaxy Retails Pvt. Ltd. GRPL - 1,45,478 4,27,500 45,00,000 - 4,49,998 6. Moonview Infrastucture MIPL 1

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

65,000 Ltd 70,00,000 6,99,999 4. Enarzier Commerce Pvt. ECPL 85,585 30,576 2,85,615 Ltd. 10,00,000 46,00,000 5,60,001 5. Galaxy Retails Pvt. Ltd. GRPL - 1,45,478 4,27,500 45,00,000 - 4,49,998 6. Moonview Infrastucture MIPL 1

SHRI M A KHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) It(Ss)A Nos.37 To 42/Ind/2015 & Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2010-11 Late M.A. Khan Acit 3(1) (Through L/H Nazhat Bhopal Parveen Khan) बनाम/ B-90, Housing Board, Vs. Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan:Aewpk 3620 C Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Shri Vijay Bansal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. In so far 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

ONEEL VERMA,NASHIK vs. ITO-5(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in initiating reassessment proceedings by issuing of notice under section 148 and passing the Assessment Order under section 144 without any valid jurisdiction. 2. In the facts and circumstances

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

M/S SWADESH DEVLOPERS AND BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri 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 A Yon the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record