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

147 of the Act and the Tribunal quashed those reassessment proceedings. It is not necessary M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 56 of 66 to go into the question as to whether reassessment proceedings were initiated or not inasmuch as on merit itself we have decided that such an addition was not proper

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

147 of the Act and the Tribunal quashed those reassessment proceedings. It is not necessary M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 56 of 66 to go into the question as to whether reassessment proceedings were initiated or not inasmuch as on merit itself we have decided that such an addition was not proper

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

147 of the Act and the Tribunal quashed those reassessment proceedings. It is not necessary M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 56 of 66 to go into the question as to whether reassessment proceedings were initiated or not inasmuch as on merit itself we have decided that such an addition was not proper

MS. SANGEETA CHOPRA,UJJAIN vs. THE PR. CIT. UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

house property 14,50,000 21,26,000 sold (Itwara, Bhopal) Indexed Cost of Acquisition 15,80,000 15,80,000 (2,50,000 x 632 / 100) Long Term Capital Gain (-) 1,30,000 5,46,000 Less : Deduction u/s. 54 of the 6,75,000 6,75,000 Act (Construction at 122, Tilak Path, Mahidpur) Taxable Capital Gain

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

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

reassessment- proceedings initiated by AO was invalid, void and bad in law. Interestingly, the assessee pursued exactly same grounds in other three assessment- years, namely AY 1988-89, 1991-92 & 1992-93 and got decided from CIT(A). Therefore, this is a bad attempt of assessee not only to blame

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

reassessment- proceedings initiated by AO was invalid, void and bad in law. Interestingly, the assessee pursued exactly same grounds in other three assessment- years, namely AY 1988-89, 1991-92 & 1992-93 and got decided from CIT(A). Therefore, this is a bad attempt of assessee not only to blame

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

reassessment- proceedings initiated by AO was invalid, void and bad in law. Interestingly, the assessee pursued exactly same grounds in other three assessment- years, namely AY 1988-89, 1991-92 & 1992-93 and got decided from CIT(A). Therefore, this is a bad attempt of assessee not only to blame

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

reassessment- proceedings initiated by AO was invalid, void and bad in law. Interestingly, the assessee pursued exactly same grounds in other three assessment- years, namely AY 1988-89, 1991-92 & 1992-93 and got decided from CIT(A). Therefore, this is a bad attempt of assessee not only to blame

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

reassessment- proceedings initiated by AO was invalid, void and bad in law. Interestingly, the assessee pursued exactly same grounds in other three assessment- years, namely AY 1988-89, 1991-92 & 1992-93 and got decided from CIT(A). Therefore, this is a bad attempt of assessee not only to blame

ABHISHEK DHANOTIA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

housing loan which has been allowed in the assessment order. [PB 48] No document is found which establishes that cash has been paid by the assessee. Reply received from Shri Akshay Doshi against notice issued u/s 131 by the Ld. AO categorically states that agreement to sell the flat was made at the value stated in the registered document. There

ACIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY MEHTA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit (Central)-1, Shri Sanjay Mehta, बनाम/ Bhopal Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Agepm2676G Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Sanjay Mehta, Dcit (Central)-1, बनाम/ Indore Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Agepm2676G Assessee By Shri Sanjay Mehta, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 .03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

house property bought jointly by appellant and his wife stood fully explained. The AO has by the addition of this income apparently taxed, an application of income already offered and taxed separately hence this addition needs to be deleted. Accordingly I allow this ground of appeal. We accordingly confirm the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the revenue

SHRI KRISHAN BAHADUR SAXENA,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:1997-98

house property from undisclosed sources. 3A. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT erred in taking cost of construction of residential property at Rs.13,62,OOO as per report of AVO, as against addition of Rs.10,12,000/- made by the AO, without giving any notice of enhancement. 3B. That, on the facts and circumstances

DY. CIT -1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

House, 5 Yashwant Niwas Colony, Indore PAN : AAACF1246Q : Appellant Revenue by Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr.DR Assessee by S/Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Kapil Shah, CAs Date of Hearing 09.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement 14.10.2020 Agrawal Transport Corporation (P) Ltd & Ors ITA Nos. 651, C.O.No.35/Ind/2019, 331/Ind/2018 & 895/Ind/2019 O R D E R PER BENCH The above captioned appeals filed at the instances

M/S AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD.,INDORE vs. THEDCIT 1(1) , INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

House, 5 Yashwant Niwas Colony, Indore PAN : AAACF1246Q : Appellant Revenue by Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr.DR Assessee by S/Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Kapil Shah, CAs Date of Hearing 09.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement 14.10.2020 Agrawal Transport Corporation (P) Ltd & Ors ITA Nos. 651, C.O.No.35/Ind/2019, 331/Ind/2018 & 895/Ind/2019 O R D E R PER BENCH The above captioned appeals filed at the instances

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AVILABLE FINANCE LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

House, 5 Yashwant Niwas Colony, Indore PAN : AAACF1246Q : Appellant Revenue by Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr.DR Assessee by S/Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Kapil Shah, CAs Date of Hearing 09.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement 14.10.2020 Agrawal Transport Corporation (P) Ltd & Ors ITA Nos. 651, C.O.No.35/Ind/2019, 331/Ind/2018 & 895/Ind/2019 O R D E R PER BENCH The above captioned appeals filed at the instances

ANIL FIROJIYA,BHAKT NAGAR UJJAIN vs. DY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYKAR BHAWAN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Anil Firojiya, Dy. Commissioner Of 6, Bhakt Nagar, Income-Tax, बनाम/ Dashera Maidan, Assessment Unit, Vs. Ujjain New Delhi (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaipf7302A Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2024

reassessing the case under consideration, the AO has added Rs. 10,29,672/- on account of unexplained investment and issued order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 17.02.2023 assessing the total income at Rs. 19,40,652/-/ 6.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision and order of the AO, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI NEERAJ MANDLOI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

reassessment could have be done only u/s 153C and not u/s 147 and thus the impugned assessment order was liable to be quashed as being without Shri Neeraj Mandloi ITA No.680/Ind/2020 & C.O.No.04/Ind/2020 jurisdiction. 3.That the Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that section 153 C overrides section 147/148 and thus proceedings which are initiated pursuant to document seized under