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

u/s 143(3) of the Act. Though the A.O has recorded that the income chargeable to tax escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment however, the A.O has not indicated what information or facts were not disclosed by the assessee at the time

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

u/s 143(3) of the Act. Though the A.O has recorded that the income chargeable to tax escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment however, the A.O has not indicated what information or facts were not disclosed by the assessee at the time

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

u/s 143(3) of the Act. Though the A.O has recorded that the income chargeable to tax escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment however, the A.O has not indicated what information or facts were not disclosed by the assessee at the time

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

u/s 143(3) of the Act. Though the A.O has recorded that the income chargeable to tax escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment however, the A.O has not indicated what information or facts were not disclosed by the assessee at the time

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

u/s 143(3) of the Act. Though the A.O has recorded that the income chargeable to tax escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment however, the A.O has not indicated what information or facts were not disclosed by the assessee at the time

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

148A(d) of the Act were carried out, during which the assesse’s submissions challenging reopening were considered but finally Ld. AO initiated reassessment proceedings and framed the assessment u/s 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

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

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

148A(d) of the Income tax Act, 1961, dated 31.03.2022 under the belief that income escaped assessment to the extent of Rs. 3,45,00,000/- together with notice under section 148 dated 31.03.2022. 2. The case was subsequently assigned to ReFAC Assessment Unit for completion of assessment. Accordingly, in order to enable the assessee to make appropriate submissions

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

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

148A / dated 30.03.2022 u/s 148 by AO for making assessment u/s 147). Therefore, the present appeal is filed in the name of “Lt. Shri Dattatry Vamanrao Sonar Through Wife Aruna Sonar, Ujjain” and being pursued by deceased assessee’s wife-cum-legal heir. 3. At first, we re-produce the relevant portion of impugned order of first- appeal passed

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), INDORE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN INDORE vs. GURDEEP SINGH CHHABRA, INDORE

148A(d) of\nthe Income Tax Act, and before issuance of notice under section 148 of Income Tax\nAct.\nINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT\nPRADUMAN KUMAR MISHRA\nITO 2(1), IND/\n(In case the document is digitally signed please\nrefer Digital Signature at the bottom of the page)\nIn response to above notice, the assessee filed reply dated 04.06.2022\n[Page

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

148A(d) & issuing notice u/s 148 of L.T.Act, 1961 without appreciating that appellant was not having the jurisdiction for the same in view of Section 151A and the notification issued thereunder notifying e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 and, thereby, rendering the said order and the notice as well as the entire assessment proceeding as null and void

JAYA JUNEJA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

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 at Rs. 88,93,186/- as against the Returned Income of Rs. 8,95,170/- , thereby making additions of Rs.79,98,016/-, which is quite unjustified, unwarranted, excessive, arbitrary and bad- in-law. Jaya Juneja vs. ITO A.Y. 2015-16 7(i). That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both

INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(1), BHOPAL, METRO WALK BUILDING vs. RAMESH KUMAR SAHU, LEGAL HEIR OF SMT. RAMPYARI BAI, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiincome Tax Officer 3(1), Ramesh Kumar Sahu बनाम/ Bhopal L/H Of Late Smt. Ram Vs. Pyari Bai, 127 New Market, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Anhps5515N) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025

reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant

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

147 rws 144/144B of the Act, the total income of the Assessee was computed & assessed at Rs. 9,84,35,092/-.No income tax return was filed. The addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A rws 115BBE of the Act was at Rs. 9,80,10,563/-.There was yet another addition on the account of interest under

BAJRANG LAL,UJJAIN, M.P. vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad

u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 15.03.2023 framed by Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: ITA Nos.634&637/Ind/2024 Bajrang Lal – A.Y 2017-18 “1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, notice dated 27-07-2022 issued under section 148 of the Act by the Local

BAJRANG LAL,UJJAIN, M.P. vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad

u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 15.03.2023 framed by Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: ITA Nos.634&637/Ind/2024 Bajrang Lal – A.Y 2017-18 “1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, notice dated 27-07-2022 issued under section 148 of the Act by the Local

LATE VINAYAK PURANIK THROUGH LEGAL HEIR YASH PURANIK,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshilate Vinayak Puranik Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ Through L/H Yash 3(2), Vs. Puranik, Indore 7/4, New Palasia, Indore

147. The re-opening is bad in law and hence the assessment be annulled. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 16,00,000/- on account of capital gains for sale of the house. The Ld. CIT(A)(NFAC) further erred in not allowing the deduction u/s 54F and 54EC. The same