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

reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. The Principal CIT has invoked the provisions of Section 263 of the Act on two issues

JAGDISH SOLANKI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER JHABUA, JHABUA

Appeal is dismissed

u/s 144 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act. The appellant did not furnish army reply to the notices issued by the AO. However, during the appellate proceedings, he has furnished voluminous detail and documents with request to accept these additional evidences under Rule 46A. In the interest of natural justice, the details and documents furnished

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

u/s 147 r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 24.05.2023. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “01) Issue: Opportunity of being heard : That the Commissioner of Income tax (A) erred in law while concluding that despite opportunities were granted to the appellant, she did not pursue the appeal. He ought to have considered that there

S GANDHI JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18 S. Gandhi Jewellery Pcit-1, Private Limited, Indore C/O Adv. Hitesh Chimnani, बनाम/ Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18, South Tukoganj, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aamcs1613G Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

144B r.w.s. 147 and the same issue of cash deposit and eventual purchase- sale of jewellery was examined and accepted or addition was made in the reassessment proceedings after taking a conscious view. The sales of the assessee are subject to VAT and have not been doubted throughout. (kind attention is invited to pages

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

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

u/s 147 r.w.s 144B on 13.03.2023 is bad in law and bad on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances and in the law, the Ld. AO lacked jurisdiction to issue notices for reassessment and pass assessment order for an non-existing partnership firm which may please be held as bad in law and against the natural principal of justice

GOUTAM MEDICOSE,DHAR vs. ITO, DHAR

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

u/s 147 r.w.s 144B on 13.03.2023 is bad in law and bad on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances and in the law, the Ld. AO lacked jurisdiction to issue notices for reassessment and pass assessment order for an non-existing partnership firm which may please be held as bad in law and against the natural principal of justice

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

SHRI PREMNARAYAN,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

144B on 22.03.2022 by accepting the return income. Thereafter the Pr. CIT has invoked the provisions of section 263 by show cause notice u/s 263 dated 22.01.2024 as under: “M/s/Mr/Ms Subject: Noice for Hearing in respect of Revision proceedings u/s 263 of the THE INCOME TAX ACT. 1961-Assessment Year 2014-15, In this regard, a hearing in the matter

SMT. SHARDA,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

144B on 22.03.2022 by accepting the return income. Thereafter the Pr. CIT has invoked the provisions of section 263 by show cause notice u/s 263 dated 22.01.2024 as under: “M/s/Mr/Ms Subject: Noice for Hearing in respect of Revision proceedings u/s 263 of the THE INCOME TAX ACT. 1961-Assessment Year 2014-15, In this regard, a hearing in the matter

AKHILESH KUMAR PATEL,SHAHDOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER DHAR, DHAR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

reassessment proceedings and passed\nreassessment order. Therefore, for filing the appeal before CIT(A) the question\nof payment of advance tax by the assessee as per clause (b) of Sub Section 4\nof Section 249 does not arise. Similarly the Raipur Bench of the Tribunal in\ncase of Vishnusharan Chandravanshi Vs. ITO in ITA No.73/RPR/2024\norder dated 10.04.2024 has also

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

In the result, the impugned order is set aside as & by way of\nremand back to the file of the Ld

144B dated 17/08/2022, notice u/s 142(1)\ndated 22/08/2022, notice u/s 142(1) dated 21/09/2022,\n11/10/2022 & notice dated 25/10/2022,25/01/2023 & show\ncause notice u/s 144 dated 14/02/2023 were all served by the\nIncome\nTax\nDeptt. at e-mail\nID which\nwas\nshyamsundarmantri@yahoo.in which was the e-mail id of the\nerstwhile counsel of the asseessee. In brief it was contended

LT. SHRI DATTATRAY VAMANRAO SONAR THROUGH WIFE ARUNA SONAR,UJJAIN vs. ITO UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2015-2016 Lt. Dattatray Vamanrao Ito, Sonar, Ujjain (Through Wife Aruna Sonar), बनाम/ 61/17, Grasim Staff Vs. Colony, Birlagram, Nagda, Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afeps1930C Assessee By Shri Manish Vaidya & Ms. Preeti Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026

144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2015-16, the assessee has filed this appeal. Page 1 of 7 Late Shri Dattatray Vamanrao Sonar Through wife Aruna Sonar ITA No. 409/Ind/2025 – AY 2015-16 2. At the outset, we note that the assessee “Dattatray Vamanrao Sonar” had already deceased on 20.09.2019 (even before issuance

JAI PRAKASH SHAHANI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradjai Prakashshahani, Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S Jai Prakash Impex, Nfac, Delhi Vs. 73, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Apqps7948G Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025

reassessment proceedings carried out and the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B was not in conformity with the provision of section

MANISH KUMAR AGRAWAL,NEEMUCH vs. NFAC,DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s.144B without first issuing Draft Assessment Order which is bad in law in view of provisions as envisaged in Section 144B

ANIL FIROJIYA,BHAKT NAGAR UJJAIN vs. DY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYKAR BHAWAN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Anil Firojiya, Dy. Commissioner Of 6, Bhakt Nagar, Income-Tax, बनाम/ Dashera Maidan, Assessment Unit, Vs. Ujjain New Delhi (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaipf7302A Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2024

reassessing the case under consideration, the AO has added Rs. 10,29,672/- on account of unexplained investment and issued order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 17.02.2023 assessing the total income at Rs. 19,40,652/-/ 6.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision and order of the AO, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal

AJIT BONDRIYA,LIMASSOL, CYPRUS vs. ITO 2(5), BHOPAL, BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

144B of the Act.\n13\n6.\nNotice dated 10.08.2023 issued under section 142(1) of the Act.\n14-18\n7.\nAcknowledgement of reply dated 25.08.2023\n19-20\n8.\nReply dated 25.08.2023 in response to notice dated 10.08.2023\nissued under section 142(1) of the Act. along with following\nannexures:\n(a) Copy of bank statement

INDIRA BAI JINDAL,KHARGONE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

u/s 147 of the act which is bad in law. Indira Bai Jindal vs. ITO A.Y. 2013-14 3. The Assessee was passed away during the assessment proceedings and response was made by legal representative even then the Assessment proceedings was continued in the name of deceased assessee and Order was also made in the name of deceased person which

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 of the income tax act, 1961. The appeal is preferred along with the appeal for the penalty proceedings, and this shows that the appellant was unaware