THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

250 2,00,27,787 & Services PL 23 Concert AABCC9445K 1,40,70,000 9,99,93,410 Tradelink P 39 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others Ltd 8. It is quite evident from the CIT(A)’s reasoning, that the materials clearly pointed to the share applicants’ possessing substantial means to invest in the assessee

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

250 2,00,27,787 & Services PL 23 Concert AABCC9445K 1,40,70,000 9,99,93,410 Tradelink P 39 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others Ltd 8. It is quite evident from the CIT(A)’s reasoning, that the materials clearly pointed to the share applicants’ possessing substantial means to invest in the assessee

SHRI ARVIND KUMAR SINGH ,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 27.12.2017 has been considered to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the following reasons: "On perusal of the assessment order and case records, it is noticed that the assesses made cash deposits of amount of Rs.43,91,275/- and claimed this amount as cash sales

SHRI ARVIND KUMAR SINGH ,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 27.12.2017 has been considered to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the following reasons: "On perusal of the assessment order and case records, it is noticed that the assesses made cash deposits of amount of Rs.43,91,275/- and claimed this amount as cash sales

SHRI ARVIND KUMAR SINGH ,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 27.12.2017 has been considered to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the following reasons: "On perusal of the assessment order and case records, it is noticed that the assesses made cash deposits of amount of Rs.43,91,275/- and claimed this amount as cash sales

SHRI ARVIND KUMAR SINGH ,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 27.12.2017 has been considered to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the following reasons: "On perusal of the assessment order and case records, it is noticed that the assesses made cash deposits of amount of Rs.43,91,275/- and claimed this amount as cash sales

MAHENDRA KUMAR VERMA,INDORE vs. ITO-4(1), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 482/Ind/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) बनाम/ Mahendra Kumar Verma Ito-4(1) Flat No.301, Classic Indore Vs. Dream, 5-6, Paliwal Nagar, Indore (M.P.) -452011 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acspv2701P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri S. N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mongra, A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr 17/04/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14. ITA No. 482/Ind/2024 [Mahendra Kumar Verma vs. ITO] A.Y. 2013-14 - 2 – 2. The grounds raised in the appeal by the assessee are as under: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

6) Guard File\nBy order\nAssistant Registrar\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nIndore Bench, Indore", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee filed their return for AY 2017-18 and later deposited Rs.14,00,000/-. The AO initiated 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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