RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, SEHORE, SEHORE

250/-\nvi\nPenalty leviable u/s 271AAC(1) being\n10% on tax payable u/s 115BBE\nRs. 26,65,125/-\nvii\nRounded u/s 288A\nRs. 26,65,125/-\nRajesh Kumar Rathore 5\nITA No. 533/Ind/2025\nIn view of the above reasons, I am satisfied that it is a fit\ncase for levy of penalty u/s under section 271AAC(1) of\nthe Income

GOUTAM MEDICOSE,DHAR vs. PARTNER OF ERSTWHILE FIRM, DHAR

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

250 on 02.08.2024 confirming the order passed by Ld. AO u/s 147 r.w.s 144B on 13.03.2023 is bad in law and bad on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances and in the law, the Ld. AO lacked jurisdiction to issue notices for reassessment and pass assessment order for an non-existing partnership firm which may please be held

GOUTAM MEDICOSE,DHAR vs. ITO, DHAR

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

250 on 02.08.2024 confirming the order passed by Ld. AO u/s 147 r.w.s 144B on 13.03.2023 is bad in law and bad on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances and in the law, the Ld. AO lacked jurisdiction to issue notices for reassessment and pass assessment order for an non-existing partnership firm which may please be held

ANISH KUMAR JAISWAL,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DEWAS

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 after obtaining\napproval u/s 151 from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ujjain.\nSd/-\nIncome Tax Officer-I\nDewas\nAnish Kumar Jaiswal\nITA No. 686/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2010-11\n4.4 Basis above reasons we notice that it is wrongly stated that\nassessee has not filed return of income for Assessment Year\n2010-11, whereas the assessee has placed on record of this

RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 5, SEHORE, SEHORE

In the result, the impugned order is set aside as & by way of\nremand back to the file of the Ld

250 of the Act, which is herein after\nreferred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant assessment\nyear is 2018-19 and the corresponding previous year period is\nfrom 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018.\n2.\nFactual Matrix\n2.1 That as and by way of an Assessment order\" made u/s 147\nr.w.s. 144/144B of the Act, the total income of the assessee\nwas

PARAMETRIC TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S.Parametric Trading A.C.I.T., Pvt.Ltd., Circle 4(1), 205, Sujata Chambers, 2Nd Indore. Floor, Abhichand Gandhi Vs. Marg,Off Katha Bazar Masjid (W), Mumbai (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aagca4207J Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Shailesh Parmar, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2023

250/- calculated @ 5% of Rs. 62,25,000/- being sale consideration of shares of Well Pack Paper and Container Limited. Page 2 of 25 Prametric Trading Co.P.Ltd.,Indore 3 A.Y.2011-12 (v) The CIT(A) has erred in not holding that the AO ought to have started the computation of total income with income as per order giving effect

GIRIRAJIJI RAGHUNANDAN SHIKSHA PRASAR AND VIKAS SAMITI ,INDORE vs. ITO ( EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Girirajji Income-Tax Officer Raghunandan Shiksha (Exemption), Prasar & Vikas Samiti, Bhopal बनाम/ 45, Vaishali Nagar, Vs. Kotra Sultanabad, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaba59632G Assessee By Shri S.N.Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2024

250 of the Act in the case of the appellant for assessment year 2009-10 without considering the submissions filed by the appellant physically before the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Bhopal. (ii) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating reassessment proceedings u/s 147 Page

MOHD HUSSAIN KAGDI,RATLAM vs. THE IT&TP, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Mohd. Hussain Kagdi, Ito (I.T. & T.P.), 15, Tripoliya Gate, Bhopal बनाम/ Ratlam Vs. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Atzpk 4811 B Assessee By Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ca & Shri Apurva Mehta, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05.02.2024

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is liable to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. AO has erred in reopening the assessment without obtaining prior approval of the Pr. CIT in accordance with the provisions of Section 151 of the Act. Thus, the reassessment proceedings

MANISH KUMAR AGRAWAL,NEEMUCH vs. NFAC,DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s.144B without first issuing Draft Assessment Order which is bad in law in view of provisions as envisaged in Section 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961.”\n(ii) The assessee filed a Written-Submission accompanied by Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 on 26.03.2024 (the acknowledgement of e-filing is placed at Pages 4-5 of Paper

ATUL BANSAL,INDORE vs. ADDITIONA, JOIN, DEPUTY, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX OFFICER NFAC DELHI, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 after the assessee failed to respond to inquiries, treating the deposit as unexplained income u/s 69A. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.", "held": "The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided explanations for the deposit from business turnover and sale of a personal car, and had also submitted supporting documents

RITIKA JAIN,THANE vs. ITO(IT TP), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAVAN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiritika Jain, Cit (Appeals), बना A-504, Laxmi Residency Chs Nfac, म/ Ltd, Delhi Vs. Opposite Datta Mandir Check Naka, Wagle Estate, Thane

147 r.w.s. 144 of the ACT and therefore, there is no obligation of payment of advance tax as per Clause(b) of Section 249(4) as held by the Page 11 of 18 Ritika Jain ITA No. 632/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2015-16 Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in case of M/s. Nine Globe Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT (supra) in para

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

ADIM JATI SEVA SAHAKARI S ANSTHA BELKUND,BELKUND, BETUL vs. ITO, BETUL, BETUL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE. Aggrieved, the assessee matter\nin first-appeal whereupon the CIT(A) dismissed assessee's appeal in limine\nwithout adjudicating merits of case due to non-prosecution. Still aggrieved,\nthe assessee has come in next appeal before us.\n5. Ld. AR for assessee at first submitted that the section 250(6) of the\nIncome

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI NEERAJ MANDLOI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

reassessment could have be done only u/s 153C and not u/s 147 and thus the impugned assessment order was liable to be quashed as being without Shri Neeraj Mandloi ITA No.680/Ind/2020 & C.O.No.04/Ind/2020 jurisdiction. 3.That the Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that section 153 C overrides section 147/148 and thus proceedings which are initiated pursuant to document seized under

SANDEEP KUMAR YADAV,BETUL vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHO

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshisandeep Kumar Yadav, Nfac, बना Palsyapalsya, Delhi म/ Palsya, Vs. The. Bhainsdehi, Betul (Pan: Afnpy3295D) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Page 1 of 13 Sandeep Kumar Yadav ITA No. 501/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2013-14 Assessment Year is 2013-14 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That the assessee had filed return of income u/s

AROLEEN SOFTECH AND ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiaroleen Softech & Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Engineering Private 1(1), Vs. Limited, Indore 270 Shastri Market, Indore (Pan: Aajca4128P) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

u/s 250 of the I.T. Act. No details, documents or Page 2 of 7 Aroleen Softech and Engineering Private Limited ITA No.116/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2013-14 submissions have been provided by the appellant substantiating its grounds of appeal. Moreover, mere facts mentioned in Form No. 35 cannot be considered in the absence of any supporting documentary evidence and submissions. The AO has passed

RUPESH JAISWAL,DHARAMPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

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

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshirupesh Jaiswal, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 111, Azad Marg, Indore Vs. Dist. Dhar, Tehsil Dharampuri, Dharampuri (Pan: Akopj7192C) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka & Ms. Eva Rawka, Ars Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1066805901(1) dated 18.07.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. section 147 the AO disallowed the benefit of section 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assesse on commercial basis. Similar for A.Y.2016-17 & 2017-18 the AO while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee