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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

Seizure operations u/s 132 were carried out on the business as well as residential premises of CHL Group of Indore including the residential premises of both the assessee on 04.10.2013. The ld. Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 153A for A.Ys 2008-09 to 2013-14. Both the assessees then filed an application for settlement of their cases before the Income

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

AJIT KUMAR JAIN,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2006-07

147 of 3 Ajit Kumar Jain ITANo.349/Ind/2022 A.Y.2006-07 the Act, notice u/s 148 of the Act and consequential reassessment order dated 17.01.2014 may kindly be quashed. 5. Replying to the above Ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the initiation of reassessment proceedings and submitted that during search and seizure

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)

Search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on the business premises of Agroh Infrascucture Developers Pvt. ltd. (AIDPL) and Prakash Asphalting and Toll Highways (India) Ltd. (PATH). Subsequently, the assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act 1961 on 03.03.2016 for A.Y. 2008-09 in both the cases. Page

M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOO HIGHWAY LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

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)

Search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on the business premises of Agroh Infrascucture Developers Pvt. ltd. (AIDPL) and Prakash Asphalting and Toll Highways (India) Ltd. (PATH). Subsequently, the assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act 1961 on 03.03.2016 for A.Y. 2008-09 in both the cases. Page

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 same. However, if the assessment for any of the assessment years falling within 6 years has attained finally and not pending on the date of search then the same cannot be subjected to tax in the proceedings u/s 153A of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material gathered in the course of search and seizure operation

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

147. 2.That the Ld CIT (A) failed to appreciate that reassessment was initiated pursuant to search and seizure operation carried out at the premises of third parties wherein certain documents were found which allegedly belonged to the present appellant and thus under such facts reassessment could have be done only u/s

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

Seizure operations u/s. 132 of the Act, were carried out on group of asseessee(s) namely ‘Satellite Group’ on 19-11-2019 and during the course of search at the premises of M/s. Phoenix Devcons Pvt. Ltd., one of the group companies of the Satellite Group, some loose papers, inventorized as Annexure A/3, containing the payment details, aggregating

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

Seizure operations u/s. 132 of the Act, were carried out on group of asseessee(s) namely ‘Satellite Group’ on 19-11-2019 and during the course of search at the premises of M/s. Phoenix Devcons Pvt. Ltd., one of the group companies of the Satellite Group, some loose papers, inventorized as Annexure A/3, containing the payment details, aggregating

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

147. 2.That the Ld CIT (AJ failed to appreciate that reassessment was initiated pursuant to search and seizure operation carried out at the premises of third parties wherein certain documents were found which allegedly belonged to the present appellant and thus under such facts reassessment could have be done only u/s

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

147. 2.That the Ld CIT (AJ failed to appreciate that reassessment was initiated pursuant to search and seizure operation carried out at the premises of third parties wherein certain documents were found which allegedly belonged to the present appellant and thus under such facts reassessment could have be done only u/s

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

147. 2.That the Ld CIT (AJ failed to appreciate that reassessment was initiated pursuant to search and seizure operation carried out at the premises of third parties wherein certain documents were found which allegedly belonged to the present appellant and thus under such facts reassessment could have be done only u/s

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

147. 2.That the Ld CIT (AJ failed to appreciate that reassessment was initiated pursuant to search and seizure operation carried out at the premises of third parties wherein certain documents were found which allegedly belonged to the present appellant and thus under such facts reassessment could have be done only u/s

SHRI GYANENDRA SINGH JADON,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Gyanendra Singh Jadon Dcit-1(1) M-4, Radio Colony, Bhopal बनाम Indore /Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aespj9459E Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri Aditya Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

reassessment in pursuance thereof u/s. 147 of the Act, merely on guess work, conjectures and surmises, which is quite unjustified, unwarranted, improper, illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. 3. That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action of the AO in determining the total income

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

147 of the Act by way of issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Assessee again filed its return of income on 1.3.2017. During the course of reassessment proceedings assessee was asked to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the cash creditors namely M/s ADPL and M/s CTPL with regard to the unsecured loan of Rs.2

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

147 of the Act by way of issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Assessee again filed its return of income on 1.3.2017. During the course of reassessment proceedings assessee was asked to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the cash creditors namely M/s ADPL and M/s CTPL with regard to the unsecured loan of Rs.2

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

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

147 of the Act by way of issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Assessee again filed its return of income on 1.3.2017. During the course of reassessment proceedings assessee was asked to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the cash creditors namely M/s ADPL and M/s CTPL with regard to the unsecured loan of Rs.2

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