M/S JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-II, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Jayganga Exim India Pvt. Dy. Cit, Limited Central-Ii, [Formerly Known As ‘Jay Jyoti Bhopal (India) Pvt. Ltd.’] बनाम/ 26, Col. Biswas Road, Ground Floor, Vs. West Side Flat, Kolkata (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacj 8822 E Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

section 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2012-13, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds: (i) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action Page 1 of 18 M/s. Jayganga Exim India

AJIT KUMAR JAIN,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2006-07

234B of Rs.5,16,793/- ” 3. Apropos to ground no.1 & 2 the ld. AR submitted that the Ld. AO has initiated reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and has also issued notice u/s 148 of the Act by recording a satisfaction note but without application of mind and without having valid reason to believe that income has escaped assessment

BARKHA KHANDELWAL,AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1),INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Barkha Khandelwal Ito -3(1) Aggrieved Assesse Indore 1108, Pinnacle D Dreams, Tower -1 Vs. Near Bhawan Prominent School Pipliyakumar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ajnpk4150B Assessee By Shri Rakesh Gupta, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20 .09.2024

4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the impugned reassessment order passed u/s 143(3)/147 without assumption of jurisdiction as per law and without complying with mandatory conditions u/s 147 to 151 as envisaged under the Income

M/S. GANPAT PANNALAL,HARDA vs. ITO-1 HARDA, HARDA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2007-08

234B and 234C is not justified. 4.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified. 5.That the appellate craves, leave to add, to urge, to alter or to amend any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing. 3. Briefly stated facts

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisantosh Agrawal Pr. Cit-1 Mig-11, Mla Quarters Bhopal Vs. Jawahar Chowk Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ahkpa 1449E 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

reassessment was framed u/s 147 r.w. section 143(3) on 28.09.2017 accepting the return of income at Rs.6,50,640/-. Thereafter on perusal of the assessment record the Pr. CIT noted that the assesse has sold the property held jointly with Smt. Sheela Devi Agarwal and Shri Satyanarayan Agrawal on 18.01.2020 for a sum of Rs.1

DEEYA AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BURHANPUR vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshideeya Agrotech Private Ito Burhanpur बनाम/ Limited, Vs. 203, Bahadarpur Road, Burhanpur 450331, Madhya Pradesh, Indore (Pan:Aadcd9603J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pankaj Mogra, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

147 of the Act dated 11.06.2019 is confirmed. 6.0 In the result, the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed.” 2.3 The assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this tribunal and has raised the following grounds of appeal in the form no. 36 against the “impugned order” which are as under:- Page

SURESH JAT,BADNAWAR vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, DHAR, DHAR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisuresh Jat, Ito, बनाम/ C/O S.V. Agrawal & Associate Dhar. Vs. Dadi Dham, 24-25, Joy Building Colony, Old Aplasia, Indore. (Pan: Anopj2666E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri Anup Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act 2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in reopening the case of the appellant merely on the basis of non-existent/factually incorrect reasons 3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

YOGESH SOOD,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

u/s 69A. Therefore,\nabove Addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- being arbitrary and unlawful\ndeserves to be deleted.\n07.That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law,\nlevy of interest u/s.234A, 234B & 234C is illegal and\nunsustainable in law and, therefore, be cancelled.\n08. That the appellant craves leave to raise additional grounds\nand/or make amendment

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

234B of Rs.41,064/- is not justified. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the case of the assessee was re- opened for assessment and the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income

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

234B of the Act when there is no liability of advance tax.” 5. From perusal of the above grounds we find that the assessee’s Cross Objection in CO No.31/Ind/2016 and in assessee’s appeal in IT(SS)A Nos.195 & 196/Ind/2016 common issue has been raised contending that the assessment proceedings carried out u/s 153C

SANJAY KUMAR BOMB LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI AJIT KUMAR BOMB,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NEEMUCH, NEEMUCH

Appeal is disposed off in effective manner and not as

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisanjay Kumar Bombl/H Of Income Tax Officer, बना Late Ajit Kumar Bomb, Neemuch म/ 18, Bunglow No.41, Vs. Bhuteshwar Mandir Road, Neemuch (Pan: Aappb8200L) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the act of Assessing Officer w.r.t passing of order u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act without allowing the assessee an opportunity to cross examine the person on the basis of whose statement the L.d. A.O. has proposed

SMT. ARCHANA CHANDAK,INDORE vs. ITO 3(2), INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal isallowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

147 of the Income tax Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") wherein the assessment of total income was made as under: Particulars Amount Commission Income Rs. 2,190/- Addition to Income on account of Rs. 27,57.710- unexplained Cash Deposit in Banks u/s 68 of the Act Total Income Assessed Rs.27,59,900/- Regarding wrongAddition on account

HARDEEP OBEROI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(5), INDORE

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2015-16

4 of 12 Shri Hardeep Oberoi A.Y. 2015-16 documentary evidence. In view of the above the appellant's claim cannot be accepted and the AO has rightly made the addition following the provisions of section 44AD of the IT Act. Hence, these grounds of appeal are dismissed. Ground No 6, 7 & 8 9.1 These grounds of appeal