SHRI HUMAD JAIN SAKH SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,INDORE vs. ITO 2(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

u/s 148 would be\nnecessary, the legality of which would be tested in the event of a\nchallenge by the assessee.\n17. We have approached the issue of interpretation that has arisen for\ndecision in these appeals, both as a matter of first principle, based on the\nlanguage used in Section 147(1) and on the basis of the precedent

ACIT CENTRAL-2 , BHOPAL vs. M/S BALAJI FARMS AND REALITY , BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed and assessee’s cross-

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central)-2, M/S.Balaji Farms & बनाम/ Bhopal Reality, Vs. 158,3Rd Floor, Zone-Ii, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal (Pan:Aalfb9630L) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

section 50C. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in issuing penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) when the original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) has merged into reassessment order passed u/s 147

AGROH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P LTD,MHOW vs. PR CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Agroh Infrastructure Pr. Cit (Central) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Aqua Point, A.B.Road, Vs. Umaria, Mhow, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaeca 2752 L Assessee By Shri Manish Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2023

c) to Sub-section (1) of Section 263 of the Act stating: "The consequence of the said amendment made with retrospective effect is that the powers under section 263 of the Commissioner shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in an appeal. Accordingly, even in respect

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

147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132-A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

reassessment. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the honourable CIT(A) was not justified in upholding that the receipt from job work of mixing of rubber at Rs. 34,19,894 was not the business receipts/income and in confirming the same was income from other sources. 3.On the facts and in the circumstances

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

reassessment. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the honourable CIT(A) was not justified in upholding that the receipt from job work of mixing of rubber at Rs. 34,19,894 was not the business receipts/income and in confirming the same was income from other sources. 3.On the facts and in the circumstances

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

reassessment. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the honourable CIT(A) was not justified in upholding that the receipt from job work of mixing of rubber at Rs. 34,19,894 was not the business receipts/income and in confirming the same was income from other sources. 3.On the facts and in the circumstances

THE DCIT CENTRAL-(1), INDORE vs. M/S AYUSH AJAY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. , INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanii.T(Ss).A. Nos.14 To 16/Ind/2018 (Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for A.Y. 2014- 15. IT(SS)A Nos.14to16/Ind/2018 & C.O. Nos. 19to21/Ind/2018 & IT(SS)A No. 141/Ind/2019 & JCIT vs. Ayushajay Construction Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Years–2007-08 to 2009-10 & 2014-15 - 3 – 2. We have heard the respective parties, we have also perused the relevant

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

147. A copy of the judgment is being enclosed herewith for kind perusal and record of Your Honour, as Exhibit P-4. 3.06 Hon’ble ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Shri Sanjay Singhal (HUF) vs. DCIT 2020 (9) TMI 338 has held that if any material was found relating to the assessee during the course of search on third

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

147. A copy of the judgment is being enclosed herewith for kind perusal and record of Your Honour, as Exhibit P-4. 3.06 Hon’ble ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Shri Sanjay Singhal (HUF) vs. DCIT 2020 (9) TMI 338 has held that if any material was found relating to the assessee during the course of search on third

M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOO HIGHWAY LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Prakash Asphaltings & Toll Acit (Central)-1 Of Highway (India) Ltd., Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, Central-1, Prakash Asphaltings & Indore Toll Of Highway (India) बनाम/ Ltd., 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee)

271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately on this issue. Further, the matter is being referred to Addl. Commission of Income-tax (Central), Indore for issuing notice and imposing penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the “Act”. 7. Against assessment-order, the assessee filed first-appeal to Ld. CIT(A) wherein the challenge was made to the legality

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS & TOLL HIGHWAYS (INDIA) LTD., MHOW

In the result, assessee’s ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Prakash Asphaltings & Toll Acit (Central)-1 Of Highway (India) Ltd., Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, Central-1, Prakash Asphaltings & Indore Toll Of Highway (India) बनाम/ Ltd., 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee)

271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately on this issue. Further, the matter is being referred to Addl. Commission of Income-tax (Central), Indore for issuing notice and imposing penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the “Act”. 7. Against assessment-order, the assessee filed first-appeal to Ld. CIT(A) wherein the challenge was made to the legality

KUSUM GEORGE JACOB,BHOPAL vs. ITO - 2(1) BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, HOSHANGABAD

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

c), 271F & 271 (1) (b)\nof the Act. Copy of such penalty order is marked as Annexure (A/4)\nImmediately upon gaining such knowledge, she contacted another legal\ncounsel and took prompt steps to obtain relevant records and prefer the\npresent Appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal without any further delay.\n10. That, the delay of 342 days has thus occurred

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

271(1)(सी) के "ावधान आपको समझाया है । "या आप इन धाराओं के तहत "मलनेवाले लाभ को उठाना चाह"गे ता"क आपको य"द कोई शाि"त या अ"भयोजन कर अपवंचन के "लए होता है तो उससे मुि"त "मल सकती है । Page 13 of 77 Shri Kamal Panjwani, Indore vs. ACIT,3(1), Indore

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

271(1)(सी) के "ावधान आपको समझाया है । "या आप इन धाराओं के तहत "मलनेवाले लाभ को उठाना चाह"गे ता"क आपको य"द कोई शाि"त या अ"भयोजन कर अपवंचन के "लए होता है तो उससे मुि"त "मल सकती है । Page 13 of 77 Shri Kamal Panjwani, Indore vs. ACIT,3(1), Indore

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

271(1)(सी) के "ावधान आपको समझाया है । "या आप इन धाराओं के तहत "मलनेवाले लाभ को उठाना चाह"गे ता"क आपको य"द कोई शाि"त या अ"भयोजन कर अपवंचन के "लए होता है तो उससे मुि"त "मल सकती है । Page 13 of 77 Shri Kamal Panjwani, Indore vs. ACIT,3(1), Indore

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

271(1)(सी) के "ावधान आपको समझाया है । "या आप इन धाराओं के तहत "मलनेवाले लाभ को उठाना चाह"गे ता"क आपको य"द कोई शाि"त या अ"भयोजन कर अपवंचन के "लए होता है तो उससे मुि"त "मल सकती है । Page 13 of 77 Shri Kamal Panjwani, Indore vs. ACIT,3(1), Indore

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

271(1)(सी) के "ावधान आपको समझाया है । "या आप इन धाराओं के तहत "मलनेवाले लाभ को उठाना चाह"गे ता"क आपको य"द कोई शाि"त या अ"भयोजन कर अपवंचन के "लए होता है तो उससे मुि"त "मल सकती है । Page 13 of 77 Shri Kamal Panjwani, Indore vs. ACIT,3(1), Indore