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

69,670/- and revenue expenditure of Rs.6,38,75,788/- resulting into a surplus of income over expenditure of Rs.1,26,93,882/-. However, the assessee had claimed the benefit u/s 11 of the I.T. Act by considering the capital expenditure of Rs.68,67,284/- as application of funds for charitable purposes. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

69,670/- and revenue expenditure of Rs.6,38,75,788/- resulting into a surplus of income over expenditure of Rs.1,26,93,882/-. However, the assessee had claimed the benefit u/s 11 of the I.T. Act by considering the capital expenditure of Rs.68,67,284/- as application of funds for charitable purposes. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee

ANIL FIROJIYA,BHAKT NAGAR UJJAIN vs. DY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYKAR BHAWAN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Anil Firojiya, Dy. Commissioner Of 6, Bhakt Nagar, Income-Tax, बनाम/ Dashera Maidan, Assessment Unit, Vs. Ujjain New Delhi (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaipf7302A Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2024

69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and added to the total income of the assessee. The total income assessed is taxed u/s 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at the rate of 60%.” CIT(A)’s order: “Discussion, Reason & Decision : 6. I have considered the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant. I have also perused

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. DILIP KUMAR MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN HUF, INDORE

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Dilip Kumar Mahendra Acit (Central)-1, Vs. Kumar Jain, 6, Near Jagdale School, Indore Janki Nagar, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaehd1394J Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr.Dr Appellant By Shri Mahesh Agrawal, Adv. Date Of Hearing 05.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement .02.2021 O R D E R

reassessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 30.11.2018 assessing income at Rs.1,92,70,500/- adding unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE at Rs. 1,86,00,000/- and unaccounted interest income at Rs.2,03,610/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. 4. Now the Revenue is in appeal before

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

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

69 of the Income tax Act, 1961 as "unexplained investments", to be taxed as per the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income tax Act, 1961." 2.3 That it is also recorded in the “Impugned Assessment Order” that following opportunities were given to the assessee which is tabulated & is reproduced herein : " 1. Details of opportunities given Type of notice Communication

ABHISHEK DHANOTIA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A.” [emphasis supplied] 4. From the above mentioned circular, it is evident that provisions of section 153C are applicable in specific circumstances when any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belong or belongs

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

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

SHRI KAILASH CHAND GARG,INDORE vs. THE DCIT, RATLAM

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2005-06

reassessment proceeding and thereby made an error in passing order without referring necessary proof, evidences and documents by same to appellant; Relief Claimed: Notice u/s 148 dated 28.03.2012 issued by Assessing Officer deserves to be annulled and assessment framed consequent there to deserves to be declared ultra virus and accordingly by quashed. Also it may kindly be declared that

MOHD HUSSAIN KAGDI,RATLAM vs. THE IT&TP, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Mohd. Hussain Kagdi, Ito (I.T. & T.P.), 15, Tripoliya Gate, Bhopal बनाम/ Ratlam Vs. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Atzpk 4811 B Assessee By Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ca & Shri Apurva Mehta, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05.02.2024

reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed.” 2. This is a re-called matter. Originally, this appeal was decided by ITAT, Indore Bench through order dated 12.01.2023. Subsequently, the Respondent/Revenue filed M.A. No. 30/Ind/2023 requesting for recalling of order in terms of Section 254(2) of the Act. The said M.A. was decided vide order dated 28.11.2023 wherein the original

LAKHMICHAND VASWANI,INDORE vs. ITO WARD 1(4), INDORE, INDORE

In the result ITA No:-653/Ind/2025 and "Impugned order"

section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not applicable. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment

LAKHMICHAND VASWANI,INDORE vs. ITO WARD 1(4), INDORE, INDORE

In the result ITA No:-653/Ind/2025 and “Impugned order”

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

section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not applicable. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment

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

reassessment under Section 147 of the Act which is prayed to be quashed and held as unwarranted, illegal and bad- in law. 2.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the act of AO in assuming jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Act and failed to appreciate that the reasons

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

69,42,500 15,04,12,130 Services PL 19 Graceful AABCG7432L 1,52,26,500 3,00,05,878 Traders P Ltd 20 Goodward AABCG7433M 1,73,29,500 1,50,42,806 Agency P Ltd 21 Vishnupriya AAACV8829P 46,48,500 38,92,620 Prop. P Ltd. 22 Zenith Goods AAACZ0908P

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

69,42,500 15,04,12,130 Services PL 19 Graceful AABCG7432L 1,52,26,500 3,00,05,878 Traders P Ltd 20 Goodward AABCG7433M 1,73,29,500 1,50,42,806 Agency P Ltd 21 Vishnupriya AAACV8829P 46,48,500 38,92,620 Prop. P Ltd. 22 Zenith Goods AAACZ0908P