M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings.” In the light of the above judgment we are unable to affirm the action of the authorities below. As the initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) vide notice 274 of the Act is not inconformity with the requirement of the law. Thus, the Penalty order

NILIMA KOTHARI,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSTT. CENTRE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

9,500 equity shares were sold in Oct/Nov 2015 as per date-wise details stated on Page 40/41 of assessment order. These facts proved beyond doubt that the appellant was not involved in any kind of price manipulation so as to earn long term capital gain, Genuineness of purchase and sale of the shares cannot be doubted just

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

VII(2), Chennai During relevant year, assessee made cash payments to suppliers of crackers-without examining details of expenditure involved, Assessing Officer allowed said payments- commissioner found that assessee had made cash payments in excess of Rs.20,000 to some suppliers on day- to-day basis- He thus passed a revisional order disallowing said payments under section 40A (3)- Whether

AGROH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P LTD,MHOW vs. PR CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Agroh Infrastructure Pr. Cit (Central) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Aqua Point, A.B.Road, Vs. Umaria, Mhow, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaeca 2752 L Assessee By Shri Manish Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2023

1) of Section 263 of the Act stating: "The consequence of the said amendment made with retrospective effect is that the powers under section 263 of the Commissioner shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in an appeal. Accordingly, even in respect of the aforesaid three items

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the honourable CIT(A) was not justified in upholding that the receipt from job work of mixing of rubber at Rs. 34,19,894 was not the business receipts/income and in confirming the same was income from other sources. 3.On the facts and in the circumstances

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the honourable CIT(A) was not justified in upholding that the receipt from job work of mixing of rubber at Rs. 34,19,894 was not the business receipts/income and in confirming the same was income from other sources. 3.On the facts and in the circumstances

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the honourable CIT(A) was not justified in upholding that the receipt from job work of mixing of rubber at Rs. 34,19,894 was not the business receipts/income and in confirming the same was income from other sources. 3.On the facts and in the circumstances

ACIT (CENTRAL UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S ARIHANT FUTURE AND COMMODITIES LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

reassessment proceedings were dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) which have been challenged by the assessee through the cross objection. M/s Arihant Future and Commodities Ltd., Indore ITANo.374/Ind/2019 & others 4. Ground nos. 1 to 3 raised by the Revenue challenges the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 1,93,91,871/- made

THE ACIT, CENTRAL - UJJAIN, INDORE vs. M/S ARIHANT FUTURE & COMMADITIES LTD , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

reassessment proceedings were dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) which have been challenged by the assessee through the cross objection. M/s Arihant Future and Commodities Ltd., Indore ITANo.374/Ind/2019 & others 4. Ground nos. 1 to 3 raised by the Revenue challenges the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 1,93,91,871/- made

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-UJJAIN, INDORE vs. M/S ARIHANT CAPITALS MARKETS LTD , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

reassessment proceedings were dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) which have been challenged by the assessee through the cross objection. M/s Arihant Future and Commodities Ltd., Indore ITANo.374/Ind/2019 & others 4. Ground nos. 1 to 3 raised by the Revenue challenges the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 1,93,91,871/- made

SHRIMATI SHARDA KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (I), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

vii) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ITO vs Anand Builders SLP (C ) No.14166 of 2003 order dated 1.8.2003 (viii) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Nipum Builders & Developers (P) Ltd ITANo.120 of 2012 dated 7.1.2013. (2013 30 taxmann.com 292 (Delhi) (ix) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi

DYPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. , INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

vii) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ITO vs Anand Builders SLP (C ) No.14166 of 2003 order dated 1.8.2003 (viii) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Nipum Builders & Developers (P) Ltd ITANo.120 of 2012 dated 7.1.2013. (2013 30 taxmann.com 292 (Delhi) (ix) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi

MANOJ KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (1), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

vii) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ITO vs Anand Builders SLP (C ) No.14166 of 2003 order dated 1.8.2003 (viii) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Nipum Builders & Developers (P) Ltd ITANo.120 of 2012 dated 7.1.2013. (2013 30 taxmann.com 292 (Delhi) (ix) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi

M/S NISHANT FINANCE PVT.LTD,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL (I), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

vii) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ITO vs Anand Builders SLP (C ) No.14166 of 2003 order dated 1.8.2003 (viii) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Nipum Builders & Developers (P) Ltd ITANo.120 of 2012 dated 7.1.2013. (2013 30 taxmann.com 292 (Delhi) (ix) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD.,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

vii) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ITO vs Anand Builders SLP (C ) No.14166 of 2003 order dated 1.8.2003 (viii) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Nipum Builders & Developers (P) Ltd ITANo.120 of 2012 dated 7.1.2013. (2013 30 taxmann.com 292 (Delhi) (ix) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi

SUMATI KUMAR KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

vii) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ITO vs Anand Builders SLP (C ) No.14166 of 2003 order dated 1.8.2003 (viii) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Nipum Builders & Developers (P) Ltd ITANo.120 of 2012 dated 7.1.2013. (2013 30 taxmann.com 292 (Delhi) (ix) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi

PARTH KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (I), INDORE , INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

vii) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ITO vs Anand Builders SLP (C ) No.14166 of 2003 order dated 1.8.2003 (viii) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Nipum Builders & Developers (P) Ltd ITANo.120 of 2012 dated 7.1.2013. (2013 30 taxmann.com 292 (Delhi) (ix) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1)/148 of the Act or to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for assessment. In the case in hand, assessment was originally completed and assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 25.03.2015. The case of the assessee was thereafter reopened vide issue of notice under Section