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

163 as under: Page 13 of 57 Prataap Snacks Limited ITA Nos.370 to 374 & C.O No.6 & 7 Page 14 of 57 Prataap Snacks Limited ITA Nos.370 to 374 & C.O No.6 & 7 10.1 There is no dispute that earlier the assessments for the Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 were completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated

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

163 as under: Page 13 of 57 Prataap Snacks Limited ITA Nos.370 to 374 & C.O No.6 & 7 Page 14 of 57 Prataap Snacks Limited ITA Nos.370 to 374 & C.O No.6 & 7 10.1 There is no dispute that earlier the assessments for the Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 were completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated

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

163 as under: Page 13 of 57 Prataap Snacks Limited ITA Nos.370 to 374 & C.O No.6 & 7 Page 14 of 57 Prataap Snacks Limited ITA Nos.370 to 374 & C.O No.6 & 7 10.1 There is no dispute that earlier the assessments for the Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 were completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

u/s 131-Addition cannot be made. 40 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others Thus, appellant has furnished all the required details in order to prove identity of investor, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the investor. 4.2.2 Therefore, in view of the above discussion and keeping in view facts of the case, the documentary evidences filed

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

u/s 131-Addition cannot be made. 40 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others Thus, appellant has furnished all the required details in order to prove identity of investor, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the investor. 4.2.2 Therefore, in view of the above discussion and keeping in view facts of the case, the documentary evidences filed

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

u/s 131-Addition cannot be made. 40 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others Thus, appellant has furnished all the required details in order to prove identity of investor, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the investor. 4.2.2 Therefore, in view of the above discussion and keeping in view facts of the case, the documentary evidences filed

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

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

SH. RAMSWAROOP SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL- 1, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment under s. 144 / 147 of the Act, without passing a speaking order on the objections raised by the appellant against issuance of the Notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 8. That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, in law, in confirming the action of the AO in framing the assessment under s. 144 / 147

SHRI RAMESH RAO NANARAO MARATHA,NEEMUCH vs. THE ITO, NEEMUCH

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 1997-98

147 shall apply as they apply for the purposes of that section. (2) the provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151. (3) If the person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be served is a person treated as the agent of a non-resident

SHRI PURSHOTTAM KHATRI , BHOPAL vs. ITO 3(3), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2009-10

147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961(hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) was framed vide order dated 14.12.2016. The assessing officer observed that during the financial year 2008-09 relevant to the A.Y. 2009-10 the assessee had sold immovable property at sale consideration of Rs.46,00,000/- for verification of the same case of the assessee

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

reassessment proceedings since those notices were in their knowledge as they were served physically. However, show cause notices and order passed by the Ld Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Indore was never served physically to the appellant as a result of which the appellant was totally unaware of the fact that show cause notices had been issued and order

ACIT 2 (1), UJJAIN vs. M/S PHALODI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY NERSIGARH, NERSIGARH

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit-2(1) M/S. Phaloudi Construction बनाम/ Company, Nersingarh Ujjain Vs. Rajgarh (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aaffp9523Q Revenue By Shri V.J. Boricha, Sr. Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 06. 02.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal By Revenue Pertaining To A.Y. 2007-08 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)- Ujjain, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Dated 04.07.2017 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On M/S. Phaloudi Construction Co. Itano.657/Ind/2017 31.01.2013 By Dcit, 2(1), Ujjain. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.9,97,515/- On Account Of Short Deduction Of Tds Based On Proviso 2 To Section 40(A)(Ia) Which Was Introduced Only From 01.04.2013.”

163/-. Subsequently, Ld. Assessing Officer on observing that the tax has been deducted at source at lower rate than the rate applicable on payment of machinery hire charges, issued notice u/s 148 of the Act 2 M/s. Phaloudi Construction Co. ITANo.657/Ind/2017 and thereafter concluded the reassessment proceeding u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 31.01.2013 and after considering

SAMEER MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. ITO-3(3) , INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13

reassessment order 1 [ITA No.224/Ind/2019] [Sameer Maheshwari ] which is invalid, barred by limitation, illegal bad in law, void ab initio and therefore liable to be quashed. 3. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.17,28,000/- to the total income of the appellant, treating the same as unexplained investment. 2. At the outset of hearing, Ld. counsel

SHRI LOKESH GADIA,JHABUA vs. ACIT, RATLAM

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

reassessment. 2a. That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action of the AO in making addition of Rs.1,75,00,000/- in the appellant's income, by invoking provisions of s. 69B of the Act in respect of alleged cash payment for purchase of Land

SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA PARASHAR,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

163- (Trib- Indore) basis and only on the basis of 193 Assessment. CIT v. suspicion and doubts and the Narottam Mishra reference drawn by AO were also 33 Mukesh Sharma IT(SS) No.88/Ind/2013 C.O.No.76/Ind/2014, ITA No.189/Ind/2013, ITA No.702 to 711/Ind/2016 & ITA No.542/Ind/2017 not base on the reliable evidence and material –CIT(A) was right in allowing relief

SHRI KAMLESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

163- (Trib- Indore) basis and only on the basis of 193 Assessment. CIT v. suspicion and doubts and the Narottam Mishra reference drawn by AO were also 33 Mukesh Sharma IT(SS) No.88/Ind/2013 C.O.No.76/Ind/2014, ITA No.189/Ind/2013, ITA No.702 to 711/Ind/2016 & ITA No.542/Ind/2017 not base on the reliable evidence and material –CIT(A) was right in allowing relief