SANDHYA SINGH ,BHOPAL vs. ITO (2)(3), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Sandhya Singh Nfac, 121, Rohit Nagar, New Delhi बनाम/ Bawadia Kala, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aycps9215K Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari & Ms. Priyal Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

147 (existing prior to 01.04.2021). Since there was no procedure of section 148A in pre-amended law, the AO was not required to observe the formality of section 148A. Therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality in the assessment framed by AO. He prayed to reject the claim of assessee and uphold the assessment-proceedings conducted by AO. Page

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

reassessment. Again, the details recorded in the books and considered during the original assessment were in the absence of the investigation report received by the AO who issued the notice u/s 148 of the Act. The investigation report unearthed the scam that was involved in this case and in fact pierced the veil to show the real purpose and substance

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 148 can be treated to be valid having been issued under the old regime considering the period of notice extended on account of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxations & Amendments of Certain Provisions) Act 2020 (TOLA). I observe that similar issue and almost identical fact about validity of reopening proceedings came up before the Hon’ble High court of Delhi

SARTHAK REAL BUILT PVT. LTD, ,INDORE vs. DY, CIT,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

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

154 was passed on 26.12.2012 on the question of depreciation resulting into determination of total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,86,21,994/-. Thereafter, on 04.03.2015, the case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 and vide AO’s letter dated 27.05.2015, reasons for reopening the case were provided to the assessee. In response, the assessee filed

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

154 was passed on 26.12.2012 on the question of depreciation resulting into determination of total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,86,21,994/-. Thereafter, on 04.03.2015, the case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 and vide AO’s letter dated 27.05.2015, reasons for reopening the case were provided to the assessee. In response, the assessee filed

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

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

154 was passed on 26.12.2012 on the question of depreciation resulting into determination of total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,86,21,994/-. Thereafter, on 04.03.2015, the case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 and vide AO’s letter dated 27.05.2015, reasons for reopening the case were provided to the assessee. In response, the assessee filed

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

154 was passed on 26.12.2012 on the question of depreciation resulting into determination of total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,86,21,994/-. Thereafter, on 04.03.2015, the case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 and vide AO’s letter dated 27.05.2015, reasons for reopening the case were provided to the assessee. In response, the assessee filed

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

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

reassessment proceedings were conducted under the Faceless Scheme, and that all communications were sent to an email address which allegedly did not belong to the assessee. The appellant came to know about the proceedings only when approached by the jurisdictional tax authorities for recovery of demand. Thereafter, on consulting a tax professional, the appeal was filed along with a request

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the honourable CIT(A) was not justified in upholding that the receipt from job work of mixing of rubber at Rs. 34,19,894 was not the business receipts/income and in confirming the same was income from other sources. 3.On the facts and in the circumstances

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the honourable CIT(A) was not justified in upholding that the receipt from job work of mixing of rubber at Rs. 34,19,894 was not the business receipts/income and in confirming the same was income from other sources. 3.On the facts and in the circumstances

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the honourable CIT(A) was not justified in upholding that the receipt from job work of mixing of rubber at Rs. 34,19,894 was not the business receipts/income and in confirming the same was income from other sources. 3.On the facts and in the circumstances

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

reassessment proceedings after an expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years on the basis of certain information coming to his possession later on after obtaining approval from competent authority. Further, there is no restriction in the Income Tax Act that the case cannot be reopened u/s 14B on the basis of information collected during

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

reassessment proceedings after an expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years on the basis of certain information coming to his possession later on after obtaining approval from competent authority. Further, there is no restriction in the Income Tax Act that the case cannot be reopened u/s 14B on the basis of information collected during

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

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

reassessment proceedings after an expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years on the basis of certain information coming to his possession later on after obtaining approval from competent authority. Further, there is no restriction in the Income Tax Act that the case cannot be reopened u/s 14B on the basis of information collected during

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

147 83[[except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel 84[***] 85[or an order referred to in sub- section (12) of section 144BA]]] or section 150; [(ba) an order of assessment or reassessment under section 153A 87[[except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

147 83[[except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel 84[***] 85[or an order referred to in sub- section (12) of section 144BA]]] or section 150; [(ba) an order of assessment or reassessment under section 153A 87[[except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel

SHRI SANJAY DUBEY,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 1 (2), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

154 of the Act respectively for A.Y.2011-12. 2. In the appeal arising from the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w. section

SHRI SANJAY DUBEY,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 1 (2), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

154 of the Act respectively for A.Y.2011-12. 2. In the appeal arising from the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w. section