NARENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,BURHANPUR vs. PCIT INDORE-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninarendra Kumar Agrawal Pcit (1) 203, Ck Campus Aaykar Bhawan Bahadarpur Road Vs. Indore Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adapa0131B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024

section 144B on 28.03.2022 as under: “The assessee, NARENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, had filed his return of income for the AY 2016- 17 declaring total income of Rs. 5,35,510/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 09.12.2018 accepting the returned income. 02. The case was re-opened for assessment

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

reassessment framed by the AO u/s 147 r.w. section 143(3) without a valid notice u/s 143(2) is not valid and liable to be quashed as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362. 7. The next objection of the assessee is against the validity of the order passed

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

RAJESH BAGHELA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(4), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

70,900/- to AO with reference\nto the documents filed as additional evidences. Ld. Representatives of both\nsides are in agreement to remand this matter to the file of AO. Thus,\nconsidering the entire conspectus of case and in the interest of justice, we\nadmit assessee's Application of additional evidences and also agree to the\nproposal agreed by both

ADITYA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3), INDORE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, OPPOSITE WHITE CHURCH, A.B. ROAD, INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13. I.TA No. 463/IND/2023 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Aditya Agrawal vs. ITO 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and Proprietor of Hanuman Sales Corporation

M/S M.P.WAREHOUSING & LOGISTIC CORPORATION,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S M.P. Warehousing Pr. Cit-1 & Logistic Corporation, Bhopal बनाम/ Office Complex, Block-1, Gautam Nagar, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aadcm 7742 B Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

70,528/- was inadmissible u/s 43B. Thus, Ld. AR submits, it is quite apparent without saying anything that the Ld. PCIT has not examined the record of assessment, much less consideration thereof, and accorded approval in a mechanical manner without application of mind. 11. Finally, Ld. AR argued that the revision-proceeding conducted in such a manner

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

70,72,070/- NIL 2014-15 30.11.2014 38520/- 30.11.2015 NIL NIL 4. During the course of assessment proceedings and while framing the assessment order, Ld. AO mentioned that no incriminating material was found during the course of search but asserted that since the assessee has been subjected to search additions can be made on other issues which comes across during

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

70,000/- on account of 13 Mohanlal Chugh & others ‘The View’ and ‘Almas Elements’ projects respectively, is hereby sustained. Thus, the only ground raised in the appeal of the Revenue for the A.Y. 2011-12 is dismissed. Ground No. 1 for A.Y. 2012-13: 8. The only ground of appeal of the Revenue for A.Y. 2012-13 pertains to additions

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)

70,000/- on account of 13 Mohanlal Chugh & others ‘The View’ and ‘Almas Elements’ projects respectively, is hereby sustained. Thus, the only ground raised in the appeal of the Revenue for the A.Y. 2011-12 is dismissed. Ground No. 1 for A.Y. 2012-13: 8. The only ground of appeal of the Revenue for A.Y. 2012-13 pertains to additions

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)

70,000/- on account of 13 Mohanlal Chugh & others ‘The View’ and ‘Almas Elements’ projects respectively, is hereby sustained. Thus, the only ground raised in the appeal of the Revenue for the A.Y. 2011-12 is dismissed. Ground No. 1 for A.Y. 2012-13: 8. The only ground of appeal of the Revenue for A.Y. 2012-13 pertains to additions

SHANVAJ HUSSIN,KHARGONE vs. ITO, KHARGONE, KHARGONE

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shanvaj Hussain, Income Tax Officer, 5, New Sabji Mandi, Khargone बनाम/ Khargone Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afkph8029P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2025

Section 139 of the Act on 01.11.2015 wherein total income was declared at Rs.2,70,280/-. 2.2 That thereafter the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment order U/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 28.11.2016 wherein addition of Rs.40,000/- was made to the total income of the assessee and that total income

AKHILESH KUMAR PATEL,SHAHDOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER DHAR, DHAR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

70,679/-\nwas a collection by assessee from citizen centric services passed onto Govt.\nand did not represent income of assessee. Therefore, the total income of\nassessee consisted only of the income of Rs.1,14,502/- in the form of\ncommission (the assessee accepts the addition of Rs.1,14,502/- made by\nAO and does not have any dispute against