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

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

SANTOSH RATHORE,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

reassessment order. Once, the\nreassessment order per se framed by the Ld. AO is not sustainable in the eyes\nof law, any revision order passed thereon u/s 263 seeking to revise such\nunsustainable order cannot be accepted in the eyes of law and consequential\nrevision order also passed u/s 263 of the Act deserves to be quashed. Our\nview

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. 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. 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. 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

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 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