ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S FERRO CONCREATE CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT. LTD INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

152/- vide order dated 19/12/2011 u/s 143(3) by JCIT Range-(4), Indore. That the notice u/s 148 dated 04/03/15 and in compliance thereof, return was submitted and reasons for reopening was requested to DCIT Circle-1(1), Indore (M.P.). The Ld. AO supplied the reasons for reopening the assessment on 27/05/2015 and objections thereof were filed on 03/06/15

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

152/- vide order dated 19/12/2011 u/s 143(3) by JCIT Range-(4), Indore. That the notice u/s 148 dated 04/03/15 and in compliance thereof, return was submitted and reasons for reopening was requested to DCIT Circle-1(1), Indore (M.P.). The Ld. AO supplied the reasons for reopening the assessment on 27/05/2015 and objections thereof were filed on 03/06/15

DCIT KHANDWA, KHANDWA vs. M/S RAJRAJESHWAR COTTON CORPORATION, SENDHWA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Cross-

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) & C.O. No. 9/Ind/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit M/S Raj Rajeshwar Cotton Khandwa Corporation, बनाम/ Warla Road, Sendhwa, Vs. District - Khandwa (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aagfr 6243 N Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022

147 [Del.] wherein the Hon'ble Bench had dealt with a similar instance of reopening of assessment by the AO on the basis of report of DIT(I) without making any effort to discuss the material on the basis of which such belief was formed and the reopening was held invalid by the court. (iii) The Hon'ble Bench

M/S ADITYA MARKCON P LTD,INDORE vs. THE ITO 1(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Aditya Markcon Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax Officer - 1(1), G-2, Jaora Tower, 22/2 Aayakar Bhawan, बनाम/ Manoramaganj, Indore (Mp) Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaeca 5133 H Assessee By Shri Arpit Gaur, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08 .12.2022 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamble:

reassessment in pursuance thereof, which are quite unjustified, un warranted, without jurisdiction and bad-in- law. ITA 199/Ind/2022 M/s Aditya Markcon Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO AY : 2011-12 [2] 2b). That, without prejudice to the above, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred, in law, in confirming the action of the AO for issuing notice under

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained