ANJU JAIN, LR SHRI SUSHIL JAIN ,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

undisclosed income within the meaning of Section 271AAB of the Act. Notice in our opinion was vague. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows (supra) relying in its own judgment in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) had held as under:- “2. This appeal has been filed raising the following substantial

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

undisclosed income within the meaning of Section 271AAB of the Act. Notice in our opinion was vague. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows (supra) relying in its own judgment in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) had held as under:- “2. This appeal has been filed raising the following substantial

SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

income” and “furnishing of incorrect particulars” would not operate as res judicata in the penalty proceedings. It is open to the assessee to contest the proceedings on the merits. However, the validity of the assessment or reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment cannot be declared invalid

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

undisclosed income which was not offered to tax in earlier assessment years and, therefore, the penalty has been rightly levied. He, however, could not controvert the fact that the alleged notice was issued without specifying the particular limb as to under which the penalty proceedings have been initiated. 8. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available

M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

undisclosed income which was not offered to tax in earlier assessment years and, therefore, the penalty has been rightly levied. He, however, could not controvert the fact that the alleged notice was issued without specifying the particular limb as to under which the penalty proceedings have been initiated. 8. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available

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

undisclosed income which was not offered to tax in earlier assessment years and, therefore, the penalty has been rightly levied. He, however, could not controvert the fact that the alleged notice was issued without specifying the particular limb as to under which the penalty proceedings have been initiated. 8. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available

SHRI DIPAK KALANI,INDORE vs. THE JCIT,OSD, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2012-13

undisclosed income within the meaning of Section 271AAB of the Act. Notice in our opinion was vague. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows (supra) relying in its own judgment in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) had held as under:- ‘’2. This appeal has been filed raising the following substantial

SHRI PANKAJ KALANI,INDORE vs. THE JCIT, OSD (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2012-13

undisclosed income within the meaning of Section 271AAB of the Act. Notice in our opinion was vague. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows (supra) relying in its own judgment in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) had held as under:- ‘’2. This appeal has been filed raising the following substantial

THE A C I T CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL vs. S V INFRA DEVELOPERS, BHOPAL

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

income u/s 132(4). During the course of search no incriminating documents have been found from the office or from the project site of the appellant. There were other documents which were duly explained by the appellant. No undisclosed investment has been found. The accounts for the relevant years have also been examined by the Assessing Officer to reassess

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 (1), INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. (M.P), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the revenue stands

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14 Dcit-2(1), M/S. Dthri Health Care Indore Vs. Pvt. Ltd (M.P), Pu-4, Scheme No.54, Near A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aabcd4095N Revenue By Shri R.P. Mourya, Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri Sumit Neema, Sr.Adv & Gagan Tiwari, Adv Date Of Hearing 17.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2019 O R D E R

income has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147/148. During the course of reassessment proceedings Learned Assessing Officer (In short ‘Ld. A.O’) observed that as against the admitted undisclosed

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

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

reassess the 'total income taking into consideration the incriminating material collected during the search and other material which would include income declared in the returns, if any, furnished by the assessee as well as the undisclosed

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

undisclosed income of the Company. 22. Further, being the reassessment proceedings, where the AO is ceased of certain information and documents

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Income Tax Act 1961 by not giving a notice to the Assessing Officer of the date and place for the hearing the appeal, 2. Not following the provisions of section 250(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard at the hearing of the appeal. 3. deleting the addition

BIRENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,GWALIOR vs. ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Income Tax Act 1961 by not giving a notice to the Assessing Officer of the date and place for the hearing the appeal, 2. Not following the provisions of section 250(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard at the hearing of the appeal. 3. deleting the addition

SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SAHU,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Income Tax Act 1961 by not giving a notice to the Assessing Officer of the date and place for the hearing the appeal, 2. Not following the provisions of section 250(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard at the hearing of the appeal. 3. deleting the addition

SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Income Tax Act 1961 by not giving a notice to the Assessing Officer of the date and place for the hearing the appeal, 2. Not following the provisions of section 250(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard at the hearing of the appeal. 3. deleting the addition

SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA,DABRA vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Income Tax Act 1961 by not giving a notice to the Assessing Officer of the date and place for the hearing the appeal, 2. Not following the provisions of section 250(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard at the hearing of the appeal. 3. deleting the addition

SHRI LALTA PRASAD CHOUDHARY,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Income Tax Act 1961 by not giving a notice to the Assessing Officer of the date and place for the hearing the appeal, 2. Not following the provisions of section 250(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard at the hearing of the appeal. 3. deleting the addition