NARENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,BURHANPUR vs. PCIT INDORE-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninarendra Kumar Agrawal Pcit (1) 203, Ck Campus Aaykar Bhawan Bahadarpur Road Vs. Indore Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adapa0131B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024

147 r.w. section 144B of the Act with due application of mind on the issue reply filed by the assessee and supporting evidences therefore, the Pr. CIT was not justified in passing the impugned order holding order of the AO as erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue for want of proper inquiry. Ld. AR has contended

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

133A was conducted on the premises of Sarvja Jankalyan Parmarthik Nyas on 09.08.2005. During the course of such proceedings, some documents/loose papers were found and impounded from briefcase of Shri Ram Vilas Vijayvarigya. On perusal of the loose papers, it was found that these documents record amounts received by People’s College of Medical Science and Research Centre in lieu

NILIMA KOTHARI,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSTT. CENTRE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

147 r.w.section 144B of the Act dated 24.05.2023 treating the LTCG claimed by the assessee as bogus and made addition u/s 68 of the Act at Rs.24,46,824/-. The AO also made an addition for unexplained expenditure u/s 69C at Rs. 1,22,341/-. Income assessed at Rs.30,11,605/-. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before

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

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

133A was carried out on 29.12.2015 which continued till 02.01.2016. Regular assessment u/s 143(3) was made by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central – 1), Indore on 16.12.2016 wherein the returned income was accepted. Later on the case was reopened u/s 148 vide notice dated 10.12.2018 and the reassessment proceedings were completed by passing the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s

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

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

133A was carried out on 29.12.2015 which continued till 02.01.2016. Regular assessment u/s 143(3) was made by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central – 1), Indore on 16.12.2016 wherein the returned income was accepted. Later on the case was reopened u/s 148 vide notice dated 10.12.2018 and the reassessment proceedings were completed by passing the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s

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

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

133A was carried out on 29.12.2015 which continued till 02.01.2016. Regular assessment u/s 143(3) was made by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central – 1), Indore on 16.12.2016 wherein the returned income was accepted. Later on the case was reopened u/s 148 vide notice dated 10.12.2018 and the reassessment proceedings were completed by passing the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s

SUNIL SAHU,RAIPUR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, in a Lawful manner and as such the same are liable to be quashed. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and quash the reopening of the assessment. Resultantly, all additions stand deleted. Since we have quashed the reopening of the assessment, therefore, there is nothing

SUNIL SAHU,RAIPUR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, in a Lawful manner and as such the same are liable to be quashed. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and quash the reopening of the assessment. Resultantly, all additions stand deleted. Since we have quashed the reopening of the assessment, therefore, there is nothing

SUNIL SAHU,RAIPUR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, in a Lawful manner and as such the same are liable to be quashed. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and quash the reopening of the assessment. Resultantly, all additions stand deleted. Since we have quashed the reopening of the assessment, therefore, there is nothing

THE ACIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL vs. SHRI SUNIL SAHU , RAIPUR

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, in a Lawful manner and as such the same are liable to be quashed. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and quash the reopening of the assessment. Resultantly, all additions stand deleted. Since we have quashed the reopening of the assessment, therefore, there is nothing

HARISH CHANDRA PUROHIT,RATLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1, RATLAM, RATLAM

In the result- the Impugned order is set aside as and by way

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2018-19

reassessment proceedings are wrong and contrary to the provisions of Section 147, Section 148, Section 148A and Section 151 of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. Record of Hearing 3.1 That the hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 19.11.2025 when

RAKESH KUMAR SOMANI,KHANDWA vs. ITO-1, KHANDWA, KHANDWA

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradrakesh Kumar Somani, Ito-1, 10, Ramganj Road, Khandwa Vs. Khandwa (M.P) (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Azgps3988J Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2024 O R D E R

147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 24.12.2018. 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual and furnished his regular return of income for Assessment Year 2011- 12 on 25.9.2011 declaring income of Rs.3,76,900/-. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the Rakesh Kumar Somani assessee

KHOJEMA BOHRA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

Appeals are allowed

147 r.w.s 144B of\nthe Act the total income of the assessee was computed &\nassessed at Rs.29,56,940/-. The total income as per the\nreturn of income was at Rs.6,56,940/-. The addition u/s 68\nof Rs.23,00,000/- was made. The aforesaid assessment order\nis hereinafter referred to as the \"Impugned Assessment\nOrder\". The relevant portion

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

147 of the Act was initiated against the assessee and the AO passed reassessment order with the conclusion that the appellant has earned sufficient profits in MCX and NCDEX and incurred losses on NMCE platform so as to set off the profits against such losses and disallowed the impugned amount. Before the authorities below it was contended by the assessee

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

147 of the Act was initiated against the assessee and the AO passed reassessment order with the conclusion that the appellant has earned sufficient profits in MCX and NCDEX and incurred losses on NMCE platform so as to set off the profits against such losses and disallowed the impugned amount. Before the authorities below it was contended by the assessee

DCIT-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MANIDHARI JEWELLERS, BHOPAL

The appeal are allowed

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-3(1), Manidhari Jewellers, बनाम/ Bhopal Room No.202, Vs. Metro Walk Bulding, Bitten Market, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Pan: Abafm6546L) (Revenue) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1064957812(1) dated 17.05.2024 of Ld. CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year