DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

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

159) of his Order, has stated that the period of the payment is not clearly available and therefore, merely on presumption the AO formed an opinion that the expenditure might have been incurred during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration and made the impugned addition. We find support from the ratio laid down

VIRENDRA SINGH THRU LEGAL HEIR SANGEETA THAKUR,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivirendra Singh

147 wherein the notice u/s 148 was served on 26.03.2019 upon deceased person. Further, the ITA No. 203/Ind/2024 for AY 2017-18 has a situation of regular assessment u/s 143(2) wherein the notice u/s 143(2) was served on 24.08.2018 upon deceased person. Thus, the notices u/s 148 and 143(2) initiating the proceeding of re-assessment/regular assessment

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER , RAISEN, RAISEN vs. LATE SUDHA AGRAWAL TH. L/H MANMOHAN AGRAWAL, RAISEN

Appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniincome-Tax Officer, Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal, बनाम/ Raisen (L/H: Manmohan Agrawal) Vs. 19/1, Shreeji Enterprise, Near Sbi, Sagar Road, Yashwant Nagar, M.P. (Pan: Abfpa4355G) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

159(2)(a) cannot help the revenue because that section could be applied had the proceeding u/s 143(2) been taken against deceased person before death, which is not the situation in present case. 17. To support the above proposition, Ld. AR also relied upon Savita Kapila Vs. ACIT (2020) 118 taxmann.com 46 (Delhi HC), relevant paras are as under

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 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

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

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

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

159 Taxman 258 wherein it has been held that if the procedure laid down in section 158BD is not followed, block assessment proceedings would be illegal. The Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly observed that the provisions of section 153C are exactly similar to the provisions of section 158BD in block assessment proceedings. Thus, considering the entire facts and the circumstances

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

159 Taxman 258 wherein it has been held that if the procedure laid down in section 158BD is not followed, block assessment proceedings would be illegal. The Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly observed that the provisions of section 153C are exactly similar to the provisions of section 158BD in block assessment proceedings. Thus, considering the entire facts and the circumstances

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

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH PUAR SON & LR OF LATE TUKOJI ROA PUAR,DEWAS vs. THE PR. CIT-1, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Vikram Singh Paur, Pr. Cit Son & Legal Heir Of Late Shri Bhopal बनाम/ Tukoji Rao Puar Vs. Dewas (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Agdpp8186B Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 .05.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Kul Bharat, J.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Pr. Cit, Bhopal Dated 18.03.2016 For The Assessment Year

u/s 263 of the Act. For the sake of clarity Section 159 is reproduced as under :- 159. Legal representatives (1) Where a person dies, his legal representatives shall be liable to pay any sum which the deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died, in the like manner and to the same extent as the deceased

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