SHRI MANUEL MEDA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, Cross Objection by the assessee in CO

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradit(Ss)A No.89/Ind/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit 1(1) M/S. L.N. Gupta Mathur Vaishya बनाम/ Charitable Trust Bhopal Vs. E-1/55, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aaatl4820E

147, section 148, section 149, undisclosed income belongs to any section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,- (a)any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing seized or requisitioned belongs to or (b) any books of account or document seized or requisitioned pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, related

DCIT KHANDWA, KHANDWA vs. M/S RAJRAJESHWAR COTTON CORPORATION, SENDHWA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Cross-

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) & C.O. No. 9/Ind/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit M/S Raj Rajeshwar Cotton Khandwa Corporation, बनाम/ Warla Road, Sendhwa, Vs. District - Khandwa (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aagfr 6243 N Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022

u/s 143(1) cannot be reopened without proper 'reason to believe'. If the reasons state that the information was received from the VAT Dept that the assessee had entered into bogus purchase 'needed deep verification', it means the 'AO is reopening for doing a 'fishing or roving inquiry' without proper reason to believe which is not permissible. Court also observed

PRAMOD PALIWAL,KHANWA vs. ACIT KHANWA, KHANWA

In the result Ground No. 1 (a) &

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10 Shri Pramod Paliwal, Acit, Prop. M/S. Pragati Vs. Khandwa Construction, Ramkishanganj, Khandwa (M.P) (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Adapp8012A Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, Cas Date Of Hearing 10.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 17.10.2019 O R D E R

147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the written submissions submitted that the assessee’s case has been re-opened after 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. There was no failure on the part of the assessee to furnish the details and no material evidence has been brought

MANTRI BROS,NEEMUCH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME-TAX

Appeal is allowed

195-208 in Paper-Book, the same are re-produced below:\n\nPara 2 of assessment-order dated 23.12.2013 u/s 143(3) for AY\n2010-11:\n\n\"2. निर्धारिती श्री सुरेश चन्द्र मंत्री, प्रो. मे. मंत्री ब्रदर्स, नीमच के नाम से कृषि उत्पाद जैसे-\nचना, धनिया, मेथी, पोस्ता, उड़द, रायड़ा आदि का कृषि उपज मंडी से क्रय कर थोक

ROHIT KUMAR YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(5), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirohit Kumar Yadav Ito 5(5) Hig-Dx-2Manishmati Arvind Indore Vihar, Mahishmati Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaupy5015 F Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2024

section 143 for those years. In the instant case we are concerned with the reassessment, in which there are more restraints on the power of the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, hold that the initiation of reassessment proceedings on this count cannot be upheld.” 6.1 Thus, the protective assessment cannot be independent of substantive assessment as protective assessment is always successive