HARISH CHANDRA PUROHIT,RATLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1, RATLAM, RATLAM

In the result- the Impugned order is set aside as and by way

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2018-19

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, the assessee’s total income exigible to tax was computed and assessed at Rs.77,08,140/-. the income as per the return of income was at Rs.62,44,140/-. The income as per the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 148 was also at Rs.62,44,140/-. The addtion/variation in respect

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1,, INDORE vs. SHRI RAJUL BHARGAVA, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

cash in lieu of the immovable assets. Therefore, when a partner retires from a partnership and his share in the net partnership assets is determined and allotted to him, what he receives is his share in the partnership and not any consideration for transfer of his interest in the partnership to the continuing partners. His share in the partnership

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI RAUNAK MARU, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

cash in lieu of the immovable assets. Therefore, when a partner retires from a partnership and his share in the net partnership assets is determined and allotted to him, what he receives is his share in the partnership and not any consideration for transfer of his interest in the partnership to the continuing partners. His share in the partnership

THE NIMAR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KHANDWA vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 The Nimar Educational Cit(Exemption) , Society, Bhopal बनाम/ Harsud Road, Civil Lines, East Nimar, Vs. Khandwa (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aabtt1409K Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

reassessments u/s 147 r.w.s. 144/144B on the issue of deposit of Rs. 17,00,000/- in bank a/c whereas the CIT(E) has initiated revisionary-action by alleging AO’s lack of examination qua the issue of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad). Thus, the issue raised by CIT(E) is clearly beyond the scope of re-assessment proceeding in which

SMT. ARCHANA CHANDAK,INDORE vs. ITO 3(2), INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal isallowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

147 of the Income tax Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") wherein the assessment of total income was made as under: Particulars Amount Commission Income Rs. 2,190/- Addition to Income on account of Rs. 27,57.710- unexplained Cash Deposit in Banks u/s 68 of the Act Total Income Assessed Rs.27,59,900/- Regarding wrongAddition on account

GOUTAM MEDICOSE,DHAR vs. ITO, DHAR

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

cash deposits of Rs. 2,08,81,600/- as unexplained income u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Simultaneously, the AO also initiated Page 2 of 15 M/s. Goutam Medicose. ITA Nos. 709 & 710/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2015-16 penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) and ultimately imposed penalty of Rs. 70,97,656/- vide penalty-order dated 18.09.2023. Aggrieved by both

GOUTAM MEDICOSE,DHAR vs. PARTNER OF ERSTWHILE FIRM, DHAR

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

cash deposits of Rs. 2,08,81,600/- as unexplained income u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Simultaneously, the AO also initiated Page 2 of 15 M/s. Goutam Medicose. ITA Nos. 709 & 710/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2015-16 penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) and ultimately imposed penalty of Rs. 70,97,656/- vide penalty-order dated 18.09.2023. Aggrieved by both

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

S GANDHI JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18 S. Gandhi Jewellery Pcit-1, Private Limited, Indore C/O Adv. Hitesh Chimnani, बनाम/ Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18, South Tukoganj, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aamcs1613G Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

cash during demonetization period by way of issue letters for SBN deposits, secondly in the regular assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) and lastly under reassessment proceedings u/s 144B r.w.s. 147

LATE SMT. MARIAM BAI (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI ABDUL RAZAK CHARA),INDORE (M.P.) vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER - 4(3), INDORE, INDORE (M.P.)

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Mariam Bai (Through Income Tax Officer 4(3), Legal Heir Shri Abdul Razak Indore Chara), Vs. 12, Daulaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Advpc5505A Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2024 O R D E R

147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 merely for verification of cash deposit in the bank account of the appellant even when no income chargeable to tax had escaped from assessment and in absence of any tangible material and live link of concealment of income merely on the basis of borrowed opinion without independent application of mind. 4. That

BAJRANG LAL,UJJAIN, M.P. vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad

u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 15.03.2023 framed by Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: ITA Nos.634&637/Ind/2024 Bajrang Lal – A.Y 2017-18 “1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, notice dated 27-07-2022 issued under section 148 of the Act by the Local

BAJRANG LAL,UJJAIN, M.P. vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad

u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 15.03.2023 framed by Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: ITA Nos.634&637/Ind/2024 Bajrang Lal – A.Y 2017-18 “1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, notice dated 27-07-2022 issued under section 148 of the Act by the Local

NEHA TAMRAKAR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5 (1), BHOPAL

In the result, the “Impugned Order” is set aside as & by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshineha Tamrakar, Ito -5(1), बनाम/ 177 A Sector, Indrapuri Bhopal. Vs. Bhopal(M.P.) (Pan: Ajtpt6475G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

147 rws 144/144B of the Act, the total income of the Assessee was computed & assessed at Rs. 22,04,600/-. The total income as per the return of the income was at Rs.1,02,100/-. The addition of Rs.22,04,600/- was made as unexplained deposit. The aforesaid Assessment order is dated 21.12.2016 [PAN No. AJTPT 6475G

RAJ KUMAR PARMAR,SEHORE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, SEHORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose, subject\nto payment of cost as mentioned above

reassessment proceedings u/s 147. The assessee remained non-responsive, and an ex-parte assessment order was passed u/s 144, treating the deposits as unexplained income u/s 69A.", "held": "The CIT(A) upheld the addition, stating that the assessee failed to provide supporting documentary evidence for the cash

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

u/s 147 of the Act & that the reassessment\nproceedings are now conducted in faceless manner. E-mail\naddress was of shyamsundarmantri@yahoo.in which did not\nbelong to the assessee. It is stated on the “Affidavit” that\ncompliance could not be done due to wrong e-mail on the portal\nand so also representation. Later upon engaging Tax consultant,\nhe was advised

RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, SEHORE, SEHORE

cash deposit\nin bank account remains unexplained. As the income to\nthe extent of Rs. 3,45,00,000/- has escaped from the\nassessment, the same is brought to tax and penalty\nproceedings under sec. 271AAC(1) are initiated. In view\nof the above detailed reasons and non compliance from\nthe assessee, I am satisfied that

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

REKHA KHANDELWAL,RAJGARH vs. ITO WARD RAJGARH, RAJGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Rekha Khandelwal, Income-Tax Officer, Ward No.2, Near Chote Ward Rajgarh Hanuman Mandir, बनाम/ Rajgarh Bus Stand Vs. S.O. Rajgarh, (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Eljpk1548B Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

u/s 147 on the basis of the AR information regarding the cash deposit of Rs.36,03,600/- in the savings bank account of the assessee. Since there was no response on behalf of the assessee to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, therefore, the assessment was framed ex-parte as best judgment assessment thereby the Assessing Officer has assessed