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 order ought to have been held as nullity by Hon’ble CIT(A). 4. That the cross objector craves the leave to add, amend, modify deleted any of the grounds of cross objection before or at the time of hearing.” 3. Ld. Counsel for the assesse has submitted that the AO has issued notice u/s

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

u/s 131-Addition cannot be made. 40 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others Thus, appellant has furnished all the required details in order to prove identity of investor, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the investor. 4.2.2 Therefore, in view of the above discussion and keeping in view facts of the case, the documentary evidences filed

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

u/s 131-Addition cannot be made. 40 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others Thus, appellant has furnished all the required details in order to prove identity of investor, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the investor. 4.2.2 Therefore, in view of the above discussion and keeping in view facts of the case, the documentary evidences filed

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

u/s 131-Addition cannot be made. 40 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others Thus, appellant has furnished all the required details in order to prove identity of investor, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the investor. 4.2.2 Therefore, in view of the above discussion and keeping in view facts of the case, the documentary evidences filed

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

147 and in the absence of cogent reasons to form belief that the assessee’s income had escaped assessment and also in the light of the fact that the AO deviated from his stand by changing his view which was formed initially and which was formed while concluding the assessment as he was not sure in himself since beginning that

SARTHAK REAL BUILT PVT. LTD, ,INDORE vs. DY, CIT,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

147 and in the absence of cogent reasons to form belief that the assessee’s income had escaped assessment and also in the light of the fact that the AO deviated from his stand by changing his view which was formed initially and which was formed while concluding the assessment as he was not sure in himself since beginning that

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

147 and in the absence of cogent reasons to form belief that the assessee’s income had escaped assessment and also in the light of the fact that the AO deviated from his stand by changing his view which was formed initially and which was formed while concluding the assessment as he was not sure in himself since beginning that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S FERRO CONCREATE CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT. LTD INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

147 and in the absence of cogent reasons to form belief that the assessee’s income had escaped assessment and also in the light of the fact that the AO deviated from his stand by changing his view which was formed initially and which was formed while concluding the assessment as he was not sure in himself since beginning that

LATE SMT SUSHILA BISARYA, BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, we are Shri Jignesh Lilachand Shah vs

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanilate Smt. Sushila Bisarya Pr. Cit-1 L.H. Pramod Bisarya Bhopal Vs. 125 Malviya Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aewpb 2587 D Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.08.2023

147 r.w.s. 143(3) on 31st July 2017 has not made Page 4 of 18 Smt. Sushila Bisarya Page 5 of 18 any addition to the return of income of the assessee and therefore, there was no occasion for the assessee to challenge the assessment order before the appellate authority. Since the assessment order was not prejudicial to the interest

JCIT OSD CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S SHAKSHI TOWN SHIP P LTD, GWALIOR

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

147 through notice dated 28.03.2018 u/s 148 after recording reason that the assessee-company had introduced capital of Rs. 20,00,000/- and also raised loans of Rs.4,77,62,500/-. Due to change in incumbency, notice u/s 129 was issued on 30.11.2018 giving a fresh opportunity to assessee. On the very same date of 30.11.2018, a copy of reasons

PRAMOD PALIWAL,KHANWA vs. ACIT KHANWA, KHANWA

In the result Ground No. 1 (a) &

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10 Shri Pramod Paliwal, Acit, Prop. M/S. Pragati Vs. Khandwa Construction, Ramkishanganj, Khandwa (M.P) (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Adapp8012A Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, Cas Date Of Hearing 10.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 17.10.2019 O R D E R

127 DTR 291 (Kar.) vi) CITvs. Hewlett Packard Globalsoft Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 386 (Kar.) vii) CITvs. Indian Rare Earths Ltd. (2015) 374 ITR 105 (Bom.) viii) Asteroids Trading & Investments (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2009) 308ITR 190 (Born.) ix) CITvs. Usha International Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 485 (Del.) x) PVP Ventures Ltd. vs. ACIT (2015) 94 CCH 147 (Chen

INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(1), BHOPAL, METRO WALK BUILDING vs. RAMESH KUMAR SAHU, LEGAL HEIR OF SMT. RAMPYARI BAI, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiincome Tax Officer 3(1), Ramesh Kumar Sahu बनाम/ Bhopal L/H Of Late Smt. Ram Vs. Pyari Bai, 127 New Market, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Anhps5515N) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025

127 New Market, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (PAN: ANHPS5515N) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Assessee by S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue Under Section 253 of the Income

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, has contended that this issue was not forming part of the ‘reasons to believe' as recorded by the AO for initiating these reopening proceedings, further this issue was categorically examined during the regular assessment proceedings and in fact part of the losses amounting to Rs. 5,44,57,527/-was also disallowed

THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, has contended that this issue was not forming part of the ‘reasons to believe' as recorded by the AO for initiating these reopening proceedings, further this issue was categorically examined during the regular assessment proceedings and in fact part of the losses amounting to Rs. 5,44,57,527/-was also disallowed

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, has contended that this issue was not forming part of the ‘reasons to believe' as recorded by the AO for initiating these reopening proceedings, further this issue was categorically examined during the regular assessment proceedings and in fact part of the losses amounting to Rs. 5,44,57,527/-was also disallowed

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

147 of the Act. We observe that the assessee did not filed its income tax return even though he was earning salary of Rs.88,000/-. The Assessing Officer was having information about the alleged unaccounted investment in residential house which prompted to initiate the assessment proceedings in order to examine the alleged investment in the residential house and its disclosure

ACIT (CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL vs. M/S FORTUNE BUILDERS, BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and cross objections of the

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central)-2, M/S.Fortune Soumya Bhopal Housing, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue /Appellant ) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aacff1234H

section 147 on 21st December, 2019, at the total income of Rs. 12,18,73,254/- after making the addition of Rs. 3,47,62,168/-. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by the AO in the reassessment order. Aggrieved by the impugned order

THE ACIT CENTRAL -2, BHOPAL vs. M/S FORTUNE SOUMYA HOUSING, BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and cross objections of the

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central)-2, M/S.Fortune Soumya Bhopal Housing, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue /Appellant ) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aacff1234H

section 147 on 21st December, 2019, at the total income of Rs. 12,18,73,254/- after making the addition of Rs. 3,47,62,168/-. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by the AO in the reassessment order. Aggrieved by the impugned order