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

SEEMA LUNAWAT,RATLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDSAUR

Appeal is allowed

reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act may kindly\nbe quashed for failure to comply with statutory and procedural requirements.\nThe reopening and issuance of notice under Section 148 being against the law\nmay kindly be declared null and void.\nThe addition so made towards the alleged penny stock transactions being vague,\nbaseless, and unlawful may kindly

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

In the result, the impugned order is set aside as & by way of\nremand back to the file of the Ld

section 249(2) of the IT Act, the\nsame is not admitted.\n4. In view of the above facts, the appeal is dismissed for\nstatistical purpose and not required to be adjudicated on\nmerits.\n5. In result, the appeal is disposed off.\"\n2.5 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Order\"\nhas preferred the instant second appeal before this

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

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

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

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

In the result ITA No:-653/Ind/2025 and \"Impugned order\"\ntherein is set aside as and by way of remand to Ld

sections": ["147", "69", "253", "148", "142(1)", "271(1)(b)"], "issues": "Whether the addition of Rs. 1,77,700/- as unexplained investment is justified and whether the reassessment

SANTOSH RATHORE,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

section 154. The\nbench minutely analysed law in this regard and applying the\nprinciple of 'coram non judice' and following aforesaid judgments of\nthe supreme court, it was held that if an assessee seeks to challenge\nthe reassessment proceedings as being without jurisdiction, when\naction for rectification is sought to be taken on the assumption of the\nvalidity

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”

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

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

reassessment by invoking the provisions of section 263 may kindly be dropped. Without prejudice to the above as far as merit of the issues reaised in show-cause notice in question are concerned, we have to submit that the learned Assessing Officer has issued notices u/s 133(6) in loan creditor companies (supra). That after getting the requisite details

SHRI RAVI PRAKASH LANGER PROP M/S LANGER AUTO SALES & SEVICES, UJJAIN,UJJAIN vs. ACIT 2 (1), UJJAIN

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming and the Ld. AO has erred in reopening the assessment without appreciating that all the true and complete disclosure as required by the Ld. AO were made during the course

AJIT BONDRIYA,LIMASSOL, CYPRUS vs. ITO 2(5), BHOPAL, BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

reassessment proceedings under Section 147, leading to additions for unexplained investment and capital gains.", "held": "The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and acknowledging that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

reassess the total income of an assessee. We also find that the expression ‘total income’ has been defined under clause (45) of section 2 of the Act and according to which, the expression ‘total income’ means the total amount of income referred to in section 5, computed in the manner laid down in the Act. Thus, in our considered opinion

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

reassess the total income of an assessee. We also find that the expression ‘total income’ has been defined under clause (45) of section 2 of the Act and according to which, the expression ‘total income’ means the total amount of income referred to in section 5, computed in the manner laid down in the Act. Thus, in our considered opinion