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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

245/- during the year ended 31st March, 2010 to Rs. 1,51,31,945/- during the year ended 31st March, 2011. Hence, there was additional burden of Rs. 2,50,89,822/- on account of depreciation and finance charges which was debited in the profit and loss account of the assessee which resulted in the figure of loss being declared

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

245, the Hon’ble High Court has held that the incriminating material in the form of random sheets, loose papers, computer prints, hard disk and pen drive etc. are inadmissible in evidence. IT(SS) No.30 & 31/Ind/2023 ITA (SS) No.305/Ind/2023 Shailendra Sharma Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Vivek Agarwal

M/S. INDORE PARASPAR SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-I(I), INDORE

In the result this common issue is decided in favour of the assessee and the relevant grounds raised in Assessment Year 2008-09 to Assessment Year 2012-13 in I

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

reassessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act depreciation of investment of Rs.16,36,000/- was disallowed and added back to the income at Rs.45,66,540/- assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 28.12.2012. Income accordingly assessed at Rs.62,02,540/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging the reopening of assessment

M/S INDORE PARASPAR SAHKARI BANK LTD. ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2 (5) , INDORE

In the result this common issue is decided in favour of the assessee and the relevant grounds raised in Assessment Year 2008-09 to Assessment Year 2012-13 in I

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

reassessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act depreciation of investment of Rs.16,36,000/- was disallowed and added back to the income at Rs.45,66,540/- assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 28.12.2012. Income accordingly assessed at Rs.62,02,540/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging the reopening of assessment

SHRI GYANENDRA SINGH JADON,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Gyanendra Singh Jadon Dcit-1(1) M-4, Radio Colony, Bhopal बनाम Indore /Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aespj9459E Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri Aditya Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

reassessment in pursuance thereof u/s. 147 of the Act, merely on guess work, conjectures and surmises, which is quite unjustified, unwarranted, improper, illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. 3. 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 determining the total income

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 (1), INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. (M.P), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the revenue stands

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14 Dcit-2(1), M/S. Dthri Health Care Indore Vs. Pvt. Ltd (M.P), Pu-4, Scheme No.54, Near A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aabcd4095N Revenue By Shri R.P. Mourya, Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri Sumit Neema, Sr.Adv & Gagan Tiwari, Adv Date Of Hearing 17.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2019 O R D E R

147 of the Act were Dthri Health Care Pvt. Ltd initiated by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 15.2.2016 duly served upon the assessee after recording reason of satisfaction for reopening the case that income has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147/148. During the course of reassessment proceedings Learned Assessing Officer (In short ‘Ld. A.O’) observed

SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SAHU,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

245 (SC) (supra). 58. Respectfully following the above judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court/Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal we are of the considered view that the impugned addition for unaccounted investment in the land has rightly been deleted by Ld. CIT(A) as they were merely based on the rough jottings on the alleged seized loose papers which were

SHRI LALTA PRASAD 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

245 (SC) (supra). 58. Respectfully following the above judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court/Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal we are of the considered view that the impugned addition for unaccounted investment in the land has rightly been deleted by Ld. CIT(A) as they were merely based on the rough jottings on the alleged seized loose papers which were

SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH DHARIWAL,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

245 (SC) (supra). 58. Respectfully following the above judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court/Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal we are of the considered view that the impugned addition for unaccounted investment in the land has rightly been deleted by Ld. CIT(A) as they were merely based on the rough jottings on the alleged seized loose papers which were

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA,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

245 (SC) (supra). 58. Respectfully following the above judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court/Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal we are of the considered view that the impugned addition for unaccounted investment in the land has rightly been deleted by Ld. CIT(A) as they were merely based on the rough jottings on the alleged seized loose papers which were

THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI VINOD VAISH, 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

245 (SC) (supra). 58. Respectfully following the above judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court/Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal we are of the considered view that the impugned addition for unaccounted investment in the land has rightly been deleted by Ld. CIT(A) as they were merely based on the rough jottings on the alleged seized loose papers which were

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

245 (SC) (supra). 58. Respectfully following the above judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court/Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal we are of the considered view that the impugned addition for unaccounted investment in the land has rightly been deleted by Ld. CIT(A) as they were merely based on the rough jottings on the alleged seized loose papers which were

SHRI DHARMENDRA 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

245 (SC) (supra). 58. Respectfully following the above judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court/Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal we are of the considered view that the impugned addition for unaccounted investment in the land has rightly been deleted by Ld. CIT(A) as they were merely based on the rough jottings on the alleged seized loose papers which were

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

245 (SC) (supra). 58. Respectfully following the above judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court/Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal we are of the considered view that the impugned addition for unaccounted investment in the land has rightly been deleted by Ld. CIT(A) as they were merely based on the rough jottings on the alleged seized loose papers which were

SHRI KHEMRAJ SINGH CHAUHAN,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

245 (SC) (supra). 58. Respectfully following the above judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court/Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal we are of the considered view that the impugned addition for unaccounted investment in the land has rightly been deleted by Ld. CIT(A) as they were merely based on the rough jottings on the alleged seized loose papers which were

SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA,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

245 (SC) (supra). 58. Respectfully following the above judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court/Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal we are of the considered view that the impugned addition for unaccounted investment in the land has rightly been deleted by Ld. CIT(A) as they were merely based on the rough jottings on the alleged seized loose papers which were

SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA,DABRA 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

245 (SC) (supra). 58. Respectfully following the above judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court/Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal we are of the considered view that the impugned addition for unaccounted investment in the land has rightly been deleted by Ld. CIT(A) as they were merely based on the rough jottings on the alleged seized loose papers which were