ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act. The Cross Objections of the assessee stand disposed off being allowed. Revenue’s Appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18, 2020- 21 and 2018-19: 11. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and submitted that section 80IB(11A) provides for deduction in the case of an undertaking deriving profit from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act. The Cross Objections of the assessee stand disposed off being allowed. Revenue’s Appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18, 2020- 21 and 2018-19: 11. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and submitted that section 80IB(11A) provides for deduction in the case of an undertaking deriving profit from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act. The Cross Objections of the assessee stand disposed off being allowed. Revenue’s Appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18, 2020- 21 and 2018-19: 11. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and submitted that section 80IB(11A) provides for deduction in the case of an undertaking deriving profit from

JAYANTILAL SANGHVI,INDORE vs. ACIT 4(1), INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Jayantilal Sanghvi, Acit, 8/10, Warehouse Road, 4(1), बनाम/ Patel Bridge, Indore. Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Agtps5825Q Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, C.A. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2024

131(1A) done by him was a proceeding forming part of original assessment u/s 143(3). That was an independent proceeding and may even be a part of the investigative exercise conducted by Investigation Wing, Mumbai for which the assessee was enquired and the assessee filed letter dated 18.02.2013. Secondly, the information filed by assessee in letter dated

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

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

u/s 131 of the Act on 28.12.2015 admitted that digital data found during the course of their search represents cash transactions executed by Bhoomi Group which have not been recorded in regular books of accounts. 2. Provisions of section 153C read - “Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where

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 JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-II, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Jayganga Exim India Pvt. Dy. Cit, Limited Central-Ii, [Formerly Known As ‘Jay Jyoti Bhopal (India) Pvt. Ltd.’] बनाम/ 26, Col. Biswas Road, Ground Floor, Vs. West Side Flat, Kolkata (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacj 8822 E Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

reassessment order is contrary to law and facts and without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and without confronting the entire adverse material to the assessee and by recording incorrect facts and findings and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. (x) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

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

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

reassessment proceedings after an expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years on the basis of certain information coming to his possession later on after obtaining approval from competent authority. Further, there is no restriction in the Income Tax Act that the case cannot be reopened u/s 14B on the basis of information collected during

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

reassessment proceedings after an expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years on the basis of certain information coming to his possession later on after obtaining approval from competent authority. Further, there is no restriction in the Income Tax Act that the case cannot be reopened u/s 14B on the basis of information collected during

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

reassessment proceedings after an expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years on the basis of certain information coming to his possession later on after obtaining approval from competent authority. Further, there is no restriction in the Income Tax Act that the case cannot be reopened u/s 14B on the basis of information collected during

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained

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

131 were issued by the then AO to all the above persons’/donors. The statements of these persons were recorded on oath by then AO. It is pertinent here to mention that a number of donors have independently. Confirmed having made the cash payments to the Peoples Group for admission of students to Medical Courses. A search and seizure action

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

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

3,403 - 86,066 - 23,00,000 2,29,998 11. Auckland Trading Pvt. ATPL - - Ltd. - 30,00,000 1,22,131 2,99,999 12. Avishkar Dealers Pvt. Ltd. ADPL 89,999 - 32,787 - 10,00,000 99,998 13. Bandana Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. BVPL 19,233 - 94,481 - 26,00,000 2,59,999 14. Mercury Deal Trade