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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

129 Honóur will find that the share applicant declared net Profit to the tune of Rs 32.95 crores 2.4 In Schedule -6 of the Balance sheet the amount 134 of share capital as invested in the assessee company was duly reflected on face of the Balance sheet 2.5 The assessing officer himself in the Assessment 122 Year

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

129 Honóur will find that the share applicant declared net Profit to the tune of Rs 32.95 crores 2.4 In Schedule -6 of the Balance sheet the amount 134 of share capital as invested in the assessee company was duly reflected on face of the Balance sheet 2.5 The assessing officer himself in the Assessment 122 Year

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

129 Honóur will find that the share applicant declared net Profit to the tune of Rs 32.95 crores 2.4 In Schedule -6 of the Balance sheet the amount 134 of share capital as invested in the assessee company was duly reflected on face of the Balance sheet 2.5 The assessing officer himself in the Assessment 122 Year

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. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the honourable CIT(A) was not justified in upholding that the receipt from job work of mixing of rubber at Rs. 34,19,894 was not the business receipts/income and in confirming the same was income from other sources. 3.On the facts and in the circumstances

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. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the honourable CIT(A) was not justified in upholding that the receipt from job work of mixing of rubber at Rs. 34,19,894 was not the business receipts/income and in confirming the same was income from other sources. 3.On the facts and in the circumstances

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. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the honourable CIT(A) was not justified in upholding that the receipt from job work of mixing of rubber at Rs. 34,19,894 was not the business receipts/income and in confirming the same was income from other sources. 3.On the facts and in the circumstances

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

147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132-A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish

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

Appeal is dismissed and assessee's cross-\nobjection is allowed

147 through notice dated 28.03.2018 u/s 148 after recording\nreason that the assessee-company had introduced capital of Rs.\n20,00,000/- and also raised loans of Rs.4,77,62,500/-. Due to change in\nincumbency, notice u/s 129 was issued on 30.11.2018 giving a fresh\nopportunity to assessee. On the very same date of 30.11.2018, a copy of\nreasons

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

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

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

ROHIT KUMAR YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(5), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirohit Kumar Yadav Ito 5(5) Hig-Dx-2Manishmati Arvind Indore Vihar, Mahishmati Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaupy5015 F Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2024

section 143 for those years. In the instant case we are concerned with the reassessment, in which there are more restraints on the power of the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, hold that the initiation of reassessment proceedings on this count cannot be upheld.” 6.1 Thus, the protective assessment cannot be independent of substantive assessment as protective assessment is always successive

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

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

reassessment proceedings since those notices were in their knowledge as they were served physically. However, show cause notices and order passed by the Ld Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Indore was never served physically to the appellant as a result of which the appellant was totally unaware of the fact that show cause notices had been issued and order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

129 of for all defects and deficiencies in the the Project Highway for a period of 120 agreement days (One hundred and twenty) days after the termination, and it shall have the obligation to repair and rectify, at its own cost, all defects and deficiencies observed by the Independent Engineer in the Project Highway during the aforesaid period. …” 12 Escrow

THED CIT ,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S DILIP BUILDCON LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

129 of for all defects and deficiencies in the the Project Highway for a period of 120 agreement days (One hundred and twenty) days after the termination, and it shall have the obligation to repair and rectify, at its own cost, all defects and deficiencies observed by the Independent Engineer in the Project Highway during the aforesaid period. …” 12 Escrow

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

129 of for all defects and deficiencies in the the Project Highway for a period of 120 agreement days (One hundred and twenty) days after the termination, and it shall have the obligation to repair and rectify, at its own cost, all defects and deficiencies observed by the Independent Engineer in the Project Highway during the aforesaid period. …” 12 Escrow