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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

144 r.w.s.147 r.w.s.153(6) without\nissuing notice statutory notice u/s 143(2). Thus, the assessment-order\npassed by AO without issuing notice u/s 143(2) falls short of jurisdiction\nand therefore the same is illegal and must be quashed.\n10. So far as the assessee's right to file this application under Rule 27 of\nIncome-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules

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

u/s 147 read with section 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2012-13, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds: (i) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action Page 1 of 18 M/s. Jayganga

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

section 147 of the Act. Under the circumstances, on the aforesaid ground alone, the impugned reassessment proceedings deserve to be quashed and set aside. 5.5 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present petition succeeds.” [Emphasis supplied] Page 14 of 28 Jayantilal Sanghvi, Indore vs. ACIT,4(1), Indore ITA No. 539/Ind/2023

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

147 is contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshaft case, without following the procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. That the assessment is bad in law being made without following the principles of equity and justice and denying the assessee of proper opportunity to defend, without supplying the copies

GOUTAM MEDICOSE,DHAR vs. ITO, DHAR

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

144 assessing the cash deposits of Rs. 2,08,81,600/- as unexplained income u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Simultaneously, the AO also initiated Page 2 of 15 M/s. Goutam Medicose. ITA Nos. 709 & 710/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2015-16 penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) and ultimately imposed penalty of Rs. 70,97,656/- vide penalty-order dated

GOUTAM MEDICOSE,DHAR vs. PARTNER OF ERSTWHILE FIRM, DHAR

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

144 assessing the cash deposits of Rs. 2,08,81,600/- as unexplained income u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Simultaneously, the AO also initiated Page 2 of 15 M/s. Goutam Medicose. ITA Nos. 709 & 710/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2015-16 penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) and ultimately imposed penalty of Rs. 70,97,656/- vide penalty-order dated

SWAPNIL RATHI,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 (1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Swapnil Rathi, Dcit-2(1) 17Bf, Scheme No.74C, Indore Vs. Vilay Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afwpr 6790 K Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.07.2023

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

RAMDAS YADAV,HOSHANGABAD vs. ITO-2 ITARSI, ITARSI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniramdas Yadav, Ito -2 267 Malakhedi

reassessment proceedings by issuing notice u/s 148 and thereafter completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w. section 147. Thus, Ld. AR has submitted

SURESH JAT,BADNAWAR vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, DHAR, DHAR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisuresh Jat, Ito, बनाम/ C/O S.V. Agrawal & Associate Dhar. Vs. Dadi Dham, 24-25, Joy Building Colony, Old Aplasia, Indore. (Pan: Anopj2666E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri Anup Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act 2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in reopening the case of the appellant merely on the basis of non-existent/factually incorrect reasons 3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

KUNAL VYAS,INDORE vs. ITO 4(1), IND, MAIN BUILDING, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

147 read with section 144 and section 144B of the Act by making additions of ₹16,00,687/- under section 68 of the Act and ₹7,75,000/- under section 69 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals). Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised multiple grounds challenging

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

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 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

SANDEEP KUMAR YADAV,BETUL vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHO

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshisandeep Kumar Yadav, Nfac, बना Palsyapalsya, Delhi म/ Palsya, Vs. The. Bhainsdehi, Betul (Pan: Afnpy3295D) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

reassessment proceedings initiated in his case. It was only when the notice of Penalty was received that he got to know about the closed assessment proceedings u/s 147 read with section 144