ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS & TOLL HIGHWAYS (INDIA) LTD., MHOW

In the result, assessee’s ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Prakash Asphaltings & Toll Acit (Central)-1 Of Highway (India) Ltd., Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, Central-1, Prakash Asphaltings & Indore Toll Of Highway (India) बनाम/ Ltd., 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee)

reassessment order dated 03.03.2016 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act was without jurisdiction. The appellant prays that the order dated 03.03.2016 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act be quashed as without jurisdiction.” 15. Challenging the order of first-appeal referred to in above paragraph No. 13, the revenue has come

ACIT CENTRAL-2 , BHOPAL vs. M/S BALAJI FARMS AND REALITY , BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed and assessee’s cross-

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central)-2, M/S.Balaji Farms & बनाम/ Bhopal Reality, Vs. 158,3Rd Floor, Zone-Ii, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal (Pan:Aalfb9630L) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) when the original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) has merged into reassessment order passed u/s 147

SANTOSH RATHORE,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated\n28/03/2022 from which the present revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act\noriginated.\nIt is true that before us, assessee has challenged the order passed by the Id.\nPr. CIT u/s.263 of the Act, however, since the assessee has raised the issue\nof validity of reassessment order, we first answer the question

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 order passed u/s 147 r.w. section 143(3), penalty order passed u/s 271E of the Act and assessment order

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 order passed u/s 147 r.w. section 143(3), penalty order passed u/s 271E of the Act and assessment order

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 order passed u/s 147 r.w. section 143(3), penalty order passed u/s 271E of the Act and assessment order

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

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 03.03.2016 was passed and the same expired on 31.03.2018. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Indira Industries vs Pr. CIT (supra) has held in para 3 & 4 as under: 3.DISCUSSION: 3(i) By consent of both the counsel, the main writ appeal itself was heard out and again by consent

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

u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and\nthe reassessment proceedings were conducted under\nFaceless Scheme. All the notices, order etc. were only\nserved on mail address registered on e-filling portal.\nRajesh Kumar Rathore 10\nITA No. 533/Ind/2025\nDuring the course of reassessment and penalty

JAGDISH SOLANKI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER JHABUA, JHABUA

Appeal is dismissed

penalty notice u/s 274 read with section 271AAC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 separately.\nOrder of first-appeal passed by CIT(A):\n“5. Adjudication:\n(Addition of Rs.1,19,77,876/-)\"\n5. 1. From the grounds of appeal and written submission filed by the appellant the it appears that the appellant has mainly contended against\ni. Reopening

GOUTAM MEDICOSE,DHAR vs. ITO, DHAR

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

penalty-order, the assessee filed two separate appeals before CIT(A) and contested but did not get any success. Now, the assessee has come in next appeals before ITAT. 3. Since these appeals are inter-related, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. I.T.A. No. 709/Ind/2024

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

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

penalty-order, the assessee filed two separate appeals before CIT(A) and contested but did not get any success. Now, the assessee has come in next appeals before ITAT. 3. Since these appeals are inter-related, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. I.T.A. No. 709/Ind/2024

PRASAM RAKESH CHOUDHARY,GIRNAR SOCIETY, BAPURAO GALLI, ITWARI, NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

reassessment was passed on the same day and the assessee then paid the tax due as well as the interest thereon. 10. Unfortunately for the assessee, the Assessing Officer thereafter initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. After obtaining a response from the assessee, the Assessing Officer saddled the assessee with penalty

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHOPOAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RASHTRIYA TAKNIKI SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN EVAM ANUNSANDHAN SANSTHAN, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

reassessment was passed on the same day and the assessee then paid the tax due as well as the interest thereon. 10. Unfortunately for the assessee, the Assessing Officer thereafter initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. After obtaining a response from the assessee, the Assessing Officer saddled the assessee with penalty

SHANVAJ HUSSIN,KHARGONE vs. ITO, KHARGONE, KHARGONE

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shanvaj Hussain, Income Tax Officer, 5, New Sabji Mandi, Khargone बनाम/ Khargone Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afkph8029P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2025

147 was held to be bad in law. 2.4 That after the aforesaid assessment order the Ld. Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty of Rs.81,900/- u/s 271B of the Act for failure to get accounts audited as is required u/s 44AB of the Act without properly appreciating the facts of the case and submissions made before him. The Gross

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

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

147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 25.11.2019 framed by ACIT(Central), Ujjain. The revenue has following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 10/Ind/2021 in Arihant Future & Commodities Ltd. for Assessment Year 2014-15: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of bad debts claimed

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

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

147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 25.11.2019 framed by ACIT(Central), Ujjain. The revenue has following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 10/Ind/2021 in Arihant Future & Commodities Ltd. for Assessment Year 2014-15: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of bad debts claimed

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

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

147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 25.11.2019 framed by ACIT(Central), Ujjain. The revenue has following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 10/Ind/2021 in Arihant Future & Commodities Ltd. for Assessment Year 2014-15: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of bad debts claimed

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

u/s 143(2) falls short of jurisdiction\nand therefore the same is illegal and must be quashed.\n10. So far as the assessee's right to file this application under Rule 27 of\nIncome-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 is concerned, Ld. AR firstly\nnarrated the provision of Rule 27 reading as under:\n\"27. The respondent, though

SURESH PATEL,DEWAS vs. CIT(A) ,NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

penalty qua the addition made in assessment-order] that the assessee consulted his counsel and became aware of the impugned order having been passed by CIT(A). Immediately thereafter, according to the consultation given by counsel, the appeal fee was paid on 24.01.2025 and present appeal was filed without further delay. Ld. AR very humbly submitted that there