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

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

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

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

147 r.w.s. 144 of the ACT and therefore, there is no obligation of payment of advance tax as per Clause(b) of Section 249(4) as held by the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in case of M/s. Nine Globe Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT (supra) in para 4 to 6 as under: “4. In that view of the matter

RITIKA JAIN,THANE vs. ITO(IT TP), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAVAN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiritika Jain, Cit (Appeals), बना A-504, Laxmi Residency Chs Nfac, म/ Ltd, Delhi Vs. Opposite Datta Mandir Check Naka, Wagle Estate, Thane

144 of the Act instead to be passed under section 144C after compliance of notice under section 142(1), thus the order by the Ld.AO is without applying his mind and against the principle of law. 5) The appellant humbly submits that the order passed is bad in law and the additions made should be deleted. (a) Ld.AO erred

SURESH PATEL,DEWAS vs. CIT(A) ,NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

147 r.w.s. 144 of the ACT and therefore, there is no obligation of payment of advance tax as per Clause(b) of Section 249(4) as held by the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in case of M/s. Nine Globe Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT (supra) in para 4 to 6 as under: “4. In that view of the matter

SURESH PATEL,DEWAS vs. CIT(A),NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

147 r.w.s. 144 of the ACT and therefore, there is no obligation of payment of advance tax as per Clause(b) of Section 249(4) as held by the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in case of M/s. Nine Globe Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT (supra) in para 4 to 6 as under: “4. In that view of the matter

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

b) Harikishan Sunderlal Virmani Vs. DCIT (2017) 88 taxmann.com 548 (Gujrat): We re-produce below the relevant paras of this order to show the facts of case: “5. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 5.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the impugned notice under section

ANKIT SHARMA,TULSIDAS MARG, BARWANI (M.P.) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SENDHWA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, A.B. ROAD, SENDHWA, DISTRICT-BARWANI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2015-16 Shri Ankit Sharma, Income-Tax Officer, 5,Tulsidas Marg, Ward Sendhwa, Gali No. 1, Distt. Barwani बनाम/ Ward No. 20, Vs. Barwani. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Hgzps8737L Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.08.2024

1) which again remained uncompiled with. Ultimately, the AO passed assessment-order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act to the best of his judgement assessing total income at Rs. 66,88,790/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal. The CIT(A) treated assessee’s first-appeal as deficient on the footing of non-payment

MANOJ KUMAR MOTWANI,BETUL MP vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER , INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NFAC

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2013-14 Manoj Kumar Motwani, Acit, Prop. Neelam Store, Nfac, Lally Chowk, Delhi बनाम/ Kothi Bazar, Vs. Betul (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaupm8830E Assessee By Shri Rakesh Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2024

1) which again remained uncompiled with. Ultimately, the AO passed assessment-order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act to the best of his judgement assessing the entire deposit of Rs. 24,65,550/- as income from unexplained sources u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal. The CIT(A) treated assessee’s first-appeal

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

b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated separately.” 2.8 That additionally the Ld. A.O has obsrved that “ A show- cause notice u/s 144 dated 24.03.2022 has been issued to the assessee fixing the date of compliance on 25.03.2022. However, the assessee has not filed any response to show-cause notice u/s 144. In view of natural justice

REKHA KHANDELWAL,RAJGARH vs. ITO WARD RAJGARH, RAJGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Rekha Khandelwal, Income-Tax Officer, Ward No.2, Near Chote Ward Rajgarh Hanuman Mandir, बनाम/ Rajgarh Bus Stand Vs. S.O. Rajgarh, (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Eljpk1548B Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

1) and show-cause notice, which again remained uncompiled by assessee. Ultimately, the AO passed ex-parte assessment- order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act assessing total income at Rs. 75,58,232/- consisting of two components, viz. (i) unexplained cash deposits in bank a/c u/s 68 – Rs. 75,52,500/- and (ii) Interest earned by assessee in bank

BARKHA KHANDELWAL,AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1),INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Barkha Khandelwal Ito -3(1) Aggrieved Assesse Indore 1108, Pinnacle D Dreams, Tower -1 Vs. Near Bhawan Prominent School Pipliyakumar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ajnpk4150B Assessee By Shri Rakesh Gupta, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20 .09.2024

147 to 151 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in not quashing the impugned reassessment order passed u/s 143(3)/147, is illegal, bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable

HARLEEN KAUR BHATIA,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

144, Pipliyarao, Near Vs. Indore Vishnupuri Colony, A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No.AMGPB3531P Assessment Years: 2015-16 Smt. Gurvinder Kaur Bhatia Pr.CIT-2 13-14, Aditya Nagar, Near Vs. Indore Vishnupuri Colony, A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No.AGJPB0037B Assessee by S/Shri Sumit Nema & Shri GaganTiwari, ARs Revenue by Shri S.S. Mantry, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 15.10.2019 Date

GURVINDER KAUR BHATIA ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

144, Pipliyarao, Near Vs. Indore Vishnupuri Colony, A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No.AMGPB3531P Assessment Years: 2015-16 Smt. Gurvinder Kaur Bhatia Pr.CIT-2 13-14, Aditya Nagar, Near Vs. Indore Vishnupuri Colony, A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No.AGJPB0037B Assessee by S/Shri Sumit Nema & Shri GaganTiwari, ARs Revenue by Shri S.S. Mantry, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 15.10.2019 Date

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

RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 5, SEHORE, SEHORE

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

b) of the Income tax Act, 1961 for representing the case. However, in response the assessee did not furnish any reply. In view of the noncompliance to the notice issued on the part of the assessee, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, relying on the information available with the Department, passed Order under section 148A(d) of the Income