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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

184/- made by the Ld. CIT(A) is confirmed. Hence, Ground No. 1 of the appeal preferred by Revenue is found to be devoid of any merit and, thus, dismissed. Ground No. 2:- 19. The Revenue through this ground of appeal has challenged the deletion of addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- made by the Ld. AO under Section

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

184 & 186 of LPS A/3, some payments were made to Shri Mohanlal Chugh, Indore. 1.01 NOTICES U/s. 153C ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT On an earlier occasion, immediately after the aforesaid search, Notices under s.153C of the Act for the relevant assessment years were issued to the assessee company by the ld. ACIT-3(1), Indore on 14-11-2011 [kindly

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

184 & 186 of LPS A/3, some payments were made to Shri Mohanlal Chugh, Indore. 1.01 NOTICES U/s. 153C ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT On an earlier occasion, immediately after the aforesaid search, Notices under s.153C of the Act for the relevant assessment years were issued to the assessee company by the ld. ACIT-3(1), Indore on 14-11-2011 [kindly

RAJ KUMAR PALIA,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - ITARSI, CAMP AT BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2009-10 Raj Kumar Paliya Dcit/Acit M/S. Da Construction

184/- as per the chart.” 9. The ld. Departmental Representative has relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 10. We have considered the facts and materials available on record. We find that the additional evidences filed by the assessee were sent to the AO by the ld. CIT(A). However, the AO without examining the facts of the case

GLOBUS HOUSING,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

147 of the Act. Page 4 of 15 Globus Housing ITA. No.872/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2014-15 Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 08.05.2020 and served through ITBA on the e-mail of the assessee. 2.6 That subsequently notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 13.01.2022. That during the course of reassessment

HARLEEN KAUR BHATIA,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

147 or 148(2) of the Act. ii. He/She may consider any order passed by the Assessing Officer as erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. This is exercised by calling for and examining the record available at this stage. iii. If after calling for and examining the records the Commissioner considers that the order

GURVINDER KAUR BHATIA ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

147 or 148(2) of the Act. ii. He/She may consider any order passed by the Assessing Officer as erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. This is exercised by calling for and examining the record available at this stage. iii. If after calling for and examining the records the Commissioner considers that the order

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained