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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

92,620 Prop. P Ltd. 22 Zenith Goods AAACZ0908P 1,43,87,250 2,00,27,787 & Services PL 23 Concert AABCC9445K 1,40,70,000 9,99,93,410 Tradelink P 39 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others Ltd 8. It is quite evident from the CIT(A)’s reasoning, that the materials clearly pointed

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

92,620 Prop. P Ltd. 22 Zenith Goods AAACZ0908P 1,43,87,250 2,00,27,787 & Services PL 23 Concert AABCC9445K 1,40,70,000 9,99,93,410 Tradelink P 39 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others Ltd 8. It is quite evident from the CIT(A)’s reasoning, that the materials clearly pointed

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

92,620 Prop. P Ltd. 22 Zenith Goods AAACZ0908P 1,43,87,250 2,00,27,787 & Services PL 23 Concert AABCC9445K 1,40,70,000 9,99,93,410 Tradelink P 39 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others Ltd 8. It is quite evident from the CIT(A)’s reasoning, that the materials clearly pointed

DCIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result appeals of the revenue & assessee are

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

reassessed the case under section 148 on the basis of change of opinion which is 8 [IT(SS)A No.99/Ind/2016 and Others ] [Pankaj Kalani & Others ] evident from the fact the proceedings under section 148 were initiated after dropping the proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act. 03.That the learned Assessing Officer without making any further enquiry initiated proceedings

THE ACIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result appeals of the revenue & assessee are

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

reassessed the case under section 148 on the basis of change of opinion which is 8 [IT(SS)A No.99/Ind/2016 and Others ] [Pankaj Kalani & Others ] evident from the fact the proceedings under section 148 were initiated after dropping the proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act. 03.That the learned Assessing Officer without making any further enquiry initiated proceedings

DCIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result appeals of the revenue & assessee are

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

reassessed the case under section 148 on the basis of change of opinion which is 8 [IT(SS)A No.99/Ind/2016 and Others ] [Pankaj Kalani & Others ] evident from the fact the proceedings under section 148 were initiated after dropping the proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act. 03.That the learned Assessing Officer without making any further enquiry initiated proceedings

THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD., INDORE

In the result appeals of the revenue & assessee are

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

reassessed the case under section 148 on the basis of change of opinion which is 8 [IT(SS)A No.99/Ind/2016 and Others ] [Pankaj Kalani & Others ] evident from the fact the proceedings under section 148 were initiated after dropping the proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act. 03.That the learned Assessing Officer without making any further enquiry initiated proceedings

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

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

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

92 , wherein the similar issue has been discussed in detail. Hence, the Assessing officer was not justified in notionally adding an amount of Rs 19,83,732/- to the income of the assessee under the head of Income from House Property in light of detailed discussion in para 2.6 to 2.9 of this letter. M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

92 , wherein the similar issue has been discussed in detail. Hence, the Assessing officer was not justified in notionally adding an amount of Rs 19,83,732/- to the income of the assessee under the head of Income from House Property in light of detailed discussion in para 2.6 to 2.9 of this letter. M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

92 , wherein the similar issue has been discussed in detail. Hence, the Assessing officer was not justified in notionally adding an amount of Rs 19,83,732/- to the income of the assessee under the head of Income from House Property in light of detailed discussion in para 2.6 to 2.9 of this letter. M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1) RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

92 , wherein the similar issue has been discussed in detail. Hence, the Assessing officer was not justified in notionally adding an amount of Rs 19,83,732/- to the income of the assessee under the head of Income from House Property in light of detailed discussion in para 2.6 to 2.9 of this letter. M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

92 , wherein the similar issue has been discussed in detail. Hence, the Assessing officer was not justified in notionally adding an amount of Rs 19,83,732/- to the income of the assessee under the head of Income from House Property in light of detailed discussion in para 2.6 to 2.9 of this letter. M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos

THE ACIT, 5(1), INDORE vs. M/S. REGAL IRON & STEEL WORKS, INDORE

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Assistant Commissioner Of Regal Iron & Steel Works, Income Tax 5(1) Vs. 38, Kibe Compound, Indore Indore (Revenue) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aadfr7119L Revenue By Shri Rajiv Jain, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Manjit Sachdeva & Avinash Gaur, Advocates Date Of Hearing 11.7.2018 Date Of 26.7.2018 Pronouncement

92,015/- was the amount withdrawn by the partners from the AOP M/s. NF Farms and the remaining amount of Rs.13,50,000/- which was introduced by one of the assessee’s firms partner Mr. Iqbal Qamar was pertaining to gift received from his sister who is a Non Resident Indian. The Ld.Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the submissions

SUNIL SAHU,RAIPUR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment proceedings for the A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2012-13, we are refraining ourselves to decide other grounds raised by the assessee which have now become academic only. Accordingly, the appeals for the A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2012-13 stand allowed. ITA No.355/Ind/2020 & Ors. (ACIT vs. Shri Sunil Sahu) A.Y.– 2013-14 & Ors. - 12 - ITA No.355/Ind/2020 (A.Y. 2013-14), filed