DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 5(1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year:” 12. Ld. AR submitted that the aforesaid proviso bars the AO from taking action u/s 147 after expiry of four years from end of the assessment-year in a case where original assessment of assessee had been made u/s

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5 1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year:” 12. Ld. AR submitted that the aforesaid proviso bars the AO from taking action u/s 147 after expiry of four years from end of the assessment-year in a case where original assessment of assessee had been made u/s

MS MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2 (1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year:” 12. Ld. AR submitted that the aforesaid proviso bars the AO from taking action u/s 147 after expiry of four years from end of the assessment-year in a case where original assessment of assessee had been made u/s

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -5(1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT. LTD., BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year:” 12. Ld. AR submitted that the aforesaid proviso bars the AO from taking action u/s 147 after expiry of four years from end of the assessment-year in a case where original assessment of assessee had been made u/s

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 orders interalia for the Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s Page 2 of 57 Prataap Snacks Limited ITA Nos.370 to 374 & C.O No.6 & 7 80IB(11A) which was challenged by the assessee before CIT(A). The CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 80IB (11A) on merits however

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 orders interalia for the Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s Page 2 of 57 Prataap Snacks Limited ITA Nos.370 to 374 & C.O No.6 & 7 80IB(11A) which was challenged by the assessee before CIT(A). The CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 80IB (11A) on merits however

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 orders interalia for the Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s Page 2 of 57 Prataap Snacks Limited ITA Nos.370 to 374 & C.O No.6 & 7 80IB(11A) which was challenged by the assessee before CIT(A). The CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 80IB (11A) on merits however

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 orders interalia for the Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s Page 2 of 57 Prataap Snacks Limited ITA Nos.370 to 374 & C.O No.6 & 7 80IB(11A) which was challenged by the assessee before CIT(A). The CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 80IB (11A) on merits however

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 orders interalia for the Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s Page 2 of 57 Prataap Snacks Limited ITA Nos.370 to 374 & C.O No.6 & 7 80IB(11A) which was challenged by the assessee before CIT(A). The CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 80IB (11A) on merits however

THE ITO-2(2), BHOPAL vs. SHRI SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed on both

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act for the assessment year 2005-06 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 17.2.2012 after recording reasons on 1.2.2012 and obtaining satisfaction of the JCIT, Sagar Range, Sagar. In response to the ITO vs. Sandeep Kumar Dubey notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee furnished return of income before

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

142(1) during the regular assessment proceedings but also that the entire material was already available with the erstwhile LD. AO and was also duly considered by him while passing the regular assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A.It is a settled legal proposition than when the LD. AO had applied his mind and passed the original assessment order

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI RAUNAK MARU, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

142(1) during the regular assessment proceedings but also that the entire material was already available with the erstwhile LD. AO and was also duly considered by him while passing the regular assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A.It is a settled legal proposition than when the LD. AO had applied his mind and passed the original assessment order

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

142(1) giving certain details in Point No. 3. Taking support from above, Ld. AR contended that the assessee has disclosed all facts fully and truly to the department/AO prior to or during original assessment. Therefore, re-opening of assessment by AO after expiry of four years from end of the relevant assessment-year is barred by Proviso to section

SHRI SANDEEP MEHTA,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEEMUCH

In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradिनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/ Assessment Year : 2009-10 वष" Shri Sandeep Mehta, The Income Tax Officer, S/O. Shri Jay Singh Mehta, Vs Neemuch Vijay Talkies Chouraha, Neemuch (Mp) Pan : Adbpm 8174 B "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17 /08/2021 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav: The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Ujjain (Mp) Dated 28.11.2017 Passed For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. In The First Ground Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged Reopening Of Assessment By Issuance Of Notice Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, While Impugning The Orders Of The Revenue Authorities, Contended That The Assessment Was Reopened For The Reason That The Assessee Has Made Cash Deposits Amounting To Rs.11,00,000/-, Without Disclosing The Source Of Deposits & This

u/s 148 is being issued. (K.P. Vaishya) Income Tax Officer, Neemuch” 6. A perusal of the assessment order would reveal that the Assessing Officer has not made any addition of Rs.11,00,000/-. The total income determined by the Assessing Officer is Rs. 4,41,300/-. The issue in dispute is squarely covered by the judgment

THE DCIT ,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S VATIKA BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit (Central)-I, M/S. Vatika Builders & Bhopal Developers, Vatika Parisar, बनाम/ Near Petrol Pump, Vs. Lalghati, Bhopal

reassessment u/s 147 will be invalid, if no notice u/s 143(2) was issued and will not be save even by section 292BB, even if the assessee participates in the proceedings. The Revenue can avail section 292BB only if notice u/s 143(2) was issued and not when admitted position is that no notice was issued as in the instant

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

reassessment order u/s 147 r.w. section 144B on 28.03.2022 as under: “The assessee, NARENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, had filed his return of income for the AY 2016- 17 declaring total income of Rs. 5,35,510/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 09.12.2018 accepting the returned income. 02. The case

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

SUNAYANA INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD,INDORE vs. PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisunayana Investment Company Pcit-1, Ltd, Indore Part-B Of 417 Chetak Centre Annex, Vs. R.N.T. Marg, Near Hotel Shreemaya, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaucs5765M Assessee By Shri Sohit Gupta & Ms. Alifiya Ali, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.10.2024 O R D E R

142(1) of the Act. This reply was already available with the A.O at the time of initiating the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2021. The assessee even in the reassessment proceedings has filed the submissions dated 17.12.2021 placed at page No. 115 to 117 of the 7 Sunayana Investment