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

67,284/- as application of funds for charitable purposes. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee was considered as charitable institution on account of ‘advancement of any other object of General Public Utility’. The ITA 280 of 2014 and ITA 692 of 2013 5 MP Madhyam Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was engaged in the nature of trade, commerce

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

Appeal is allowed

reassessment proceedings.”\nThus, in the light of judicial rulings cited above, it is clear that the\nAO's action of resorting to re-assessment u/s 147 by-passing the\ncompulsory scrutiny mandated by CBDT Instruction, is invalid and hence\nthe assessment framed by AO u/s 147 cannot be sustained. Therefore, we\nquash the order passed by AO. The assessee succeeds

M/S. SANWARIA AGROILS LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

reassessment proceedings initiated were without any jurisdiction and the same is liable to be annulled. However, ongoing through the reasons, the Ld. CIT (A) noted that in the copy of reasons supplied to the appellant, in the footer of each page the following were so mentioned “Reply-HM note -23.11.2011-ACIT-1 (1)”. On the perusal of the copy

ASHA RANI PANDYA,INDORE vs. CPC BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniasha Rani Pandya Dcit/Acit-1(1) 389 1Ad- Scheme No.74C Indore Vijay Nagar, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aqqpp7081A Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain & Shri Prakash Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28 .06.2024

67 since income earned in USA of Rs.84,53,976/- has been offered to tax in the total income declared of Rs.20,04,65,150/-. 4.2 The facts of the case and the compliance to the rules laid down u/r. 128 of the Income tax Rules, 1962 are carefully considered. It is an admitted fact that Form no.67

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

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

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 ITO-2(2), BHOPAL vs. SHRI SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed on both

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

67 ITR 1 (SC) observed that whether on the information in his possession he should commence a proceeding for assessment or reassessment must be decided by the Income-tax Officer and not by the High Court. The Income-tax Officer alone is entrusted with the power to administer the Act; if he has information from which it may be said

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)

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 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 completing assessment without serving mandatory notice under

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

67,64,838/- declared in the return of total income even without rejecting the books of account as maintained by the respondent assessee.” 17. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) while allowing the appeal preferred by the assessee observed as follows: “4.1 Ground No. 1:- Through this ground of appeal the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs.2

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

67,64,838/- declared in the return of total income even without rejecting the books of account as maintained by the respondent assessee.” 17. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) while allowing the appeal preferred by the assessee observed as follows: “4.1 Ground No. 1:- Through this ground of appeal the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs.2

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

67,64,838/- declared in the return of total income even without rejecting the books of account as maintained by the respondent assessee.” 17. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) while allowing the appeal preferred by the assessee observed as follows: “4.1 Ground No. 1:- Through this ground of appeal the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs.2

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

section 147 of the Act. Under the circumstances, on the aforesaid ground alone, the impugned reassessment proceedings deserve to be quashed and set aside. 5.5 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present petition succeeds.” [Emphasis supplied] Page 14 of 28 Jayantilal Sanghvi, Indore vs. ACIT,4(1), Indore ITA No. 539/Ind/2023

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

67,63,500/- 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 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

67,63,500/- 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

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

67,63,500/- 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