ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI RAUNAK MARU, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

2 & 3 are raised by the Revenue challenging the observations of the Ld. CIT(A) to the effect that the reassessment u/s 148 of the Act could not have been made since the assessment was completed u/s 153A of the Act and also the observation that the present reopening is only change of opinion since the impugned amount was already

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

153C of the Act for both the A.Y. 2008-09 & A.Y. 2009-10. Subsequently, the Ld. ACIT-5(1) issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Act to the appellant for for A.Y. 2008-09 on 19.03.2015 and the ld. ACIT-3(1) issued a notice u/s. 148 of the act to the appellant 9 M/s. Shivalika Realities

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

153C of the Act for both the A.Y. 2008-09 & A.Y. 2009-10. Subsequently, the Ld. ACIT-5(1) issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Act to the appellant for for A.Y. 2008-09 on 19.03.2015 and the ld. ACIT-3(1) issued a notice u/s. 148 of the act to the appellant 9 M/s. Shivalika Realities

SHRI MANUEL MEDA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, Cross Objection by the assessee in CO

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradit(Ss)A No.89/Ind/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit 1(1) M/S. L.N. Gupta Mathur Vaishya बनाम/ Charitable Trust Bhopal Vs. E-1/55, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aaatl4820E

147, section 148, section 149, undisclosed income belongs to any section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,- (a)any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing seized or requisitioned belongs to or (b) any books of account or document seized or requisitioned pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, related

SMT SADHNA VOHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO 1(3), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

2 [ITA 735/Ind/2018] [Smt. Sadhna Vohra, Bhopal] acres of land in M/s. Fortune Soumya Housing, Bhopal on 9.8.2011 for Rs.61 lakhs. Notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued and the assessment u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was framed. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. observed that the assessee had purchased some land

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

reassessment framed by the AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) is not valid and liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the AO has rightly initiated the proceedings u/s 147 & 148 of the Act as in the opinion of the AO the conditions as provided u/s 153C are not satisfied in the case

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

153C read with section-153A, is required to be issued in relation to a search initiated under section-132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section-132A, on or before the 31st day of March, 2021: Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as per this section, the time

THE ACIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result appeals of the revenue & assessee are

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

u/s 147 and thus the impugned assessment order was liable to be quashed as being without jurisdiction. 3· That the Ld ClT(A) failed to appreciate that section 153 C overrides section 147/148 and thus proceedings which are initiated pursuant to document seized under search & seizure operations in third persons premises can only be under section 153C and not under

THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD., INDORE

In the result appeals of the revenue & assessee are

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

u/s 147 and thus the impugned assessment order was liable to be quashed as being without jurisdiction. 3· That the Ld ClT(A) failed to appreciate that section 153 C overrides section 147/148 and thus proceedings which are initiated pursuant to document seized under search & seizure operations in third persons premises can only be under section 153C and not under

DCIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result appeals of the revenue & assessee are

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

u/s 147 and thus the impugned assessment order was liable to be quashed as being without jurisdiction. 3· That the Ld ClT(A) failed to appreciate that section 153 C overrides section 147/148 and thus proceedings which are initiated pursuant to document seized under search & seizure operations in third persons premises can only be under section 153C and not under

DCIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result appeals of the revenue & assessee are

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

u/s 147 and thus the impugned assessment order was liable to be quashed as being without jurisdiction. 3· That the Ld ClT(A) failed to appreciate that section 153 C overrides section 147/148 and thus proceedings which are initiated pursuant to document seized under search & seizure operations in third persons premises can only be under section 153C and not under

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AVILABLE FINANCE LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the ‘Act’) dated 29.12.2017, 21.09.2016 and 14.12.2016 framed by ACIT-1(1)/DCIT-1(1), Indore. M/s Agrawal Transport Corporation Pvt. Ltd, Assessment Year 2010-11 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal; 1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DY. CIT -1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the ‘Act’) dated 29.12.2017, 21.09.2016 and 14.12.2016 framed by ACIT-1(1)/DCIT-1(1), Indore. M/s Agrawal Transport Corporation Pvt. Ltd, Assessment Year 2010-11 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal; 1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD.,INDORE vs. THEDCIT 1(1) , INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the ‘Act’) dated 29.12.2017, 21.09.2016 and 14.12.2016 framed by ACIT-1(1)/DCIT-1(1), Indore. M/s Agrawal Transport Corporation Pvt. Ltd, Assessment Year 2010-11 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal; 1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S. AVALANCHE REALITY PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

2 of the assessee’s appeal are against initiation of provisions u/s 153C of the Act in the absence of the satisfaction recorded by the A.O. of the searched person. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal has directed the revenue to furnish copy of the satisfaction recorded by the A.O. of the searched person. It is stated

THE DCIT CENTRAL-(1), INDORE vs. M/S AYUSH AJAY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. , INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanii.T(Ss).A. Nos.14 To 16/Ind/2018 (Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10)

153C r.w.s. 153A/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for A.Ys. 2007-08 to 2009-10 respectively. In IT(SS)A No. 141/Ind/2019 the appeal preferred by the Revenue are directed against the order dated 26.04.2019 passed by the CIT(A)-3, Bhopal (M.P.) arising out of the assessment order passed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI NEERAJ MANDLOI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

reassessment could have be done only u/s 153C and not u/s 147 and thus the impugned assessment order was liable to be quashed as being without Shri Neeraj Mandloi ITA No.680/Ind/2020 & C.O.No.04/Ind/2020 jurisdiction. 3.That the Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that section 153 C overrides section 147/148 and thus proceedings which are initiated pursuant to document seized under

LATE SMT SUSHILA BISARYA, BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, we are Shri Jignesh Lilachand Shah vs

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanilate Smt. Sushila Bisarya Pr. Cit-1 L.H. Pramod Bisarya Bhopal Vs. 125 Malviya Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aewpb 2587 D Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.08.2023

147 r.w.s. 143(3) on 31st July 2017 has not made Page 4 of 18 Smt. Sushila Bisarya Page 5 of 18 any addition to the return of income of the assessee and therefore, there was no occasion for the assessee to challenge the assessment order before the appellate authority. Since the assessment order was not prejudicial to the interest