SHRI HUMAD JAIN SAKH SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,INDORE vs. ITO 2(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

reassess any other income which has escaped\nassessment and which comes to his notice during the course of the\nproceedings. However, if after issuing a notice under section 148, he\naccepted the contention of the assessee and holds that the income\nwhich he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped\nassessment, has as a matter of fact

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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”

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