ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act. The Cross Objections of the assessee stand disposed off being allowed. Revenue’s Appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18, 2020- 21 and 2018-19: 11. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and submitted that section 80IB(11A) provides for deduction in the case of an undertaking deriving profit from

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act. The Cross Objections of the assessee stand disposed off being allowed. Revenue’s Appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18, 2020- 21 and 2018-19: 11. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and submitted that section 80IB(11A) provides for deduction in the case of an undertaking deriving profit from

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act. The Cross Objections of the assessee stand disposed off being allowed. Revenue’s Appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18, 2020- 21 and 2018-19: 11. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and submitted that section 80IB(11A) provides for deduction in the case of an undertaking deriving profit from

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

reassessment framed by the AO u/s 147 r.w. section 143(3) without a valid notice u/s 143(2) is not valid and liable to be quashed as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362. 7. The next objection of the assessee is against the validity of the order passed

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

36,000 Ltd. 14 Surya Shakti AAECS0505K 9,55,500 4,06,97,791 Marketing PL 15 Super Deal AAECS2143K 1,79,58,750 25,00,46,932 Sales P Ltd 16 Quicker Impex AAACQ0433E 1,07,69,250 3,27,11,907 & Credit PL 17 Satyam Credit AADCS6627H 65,39,250 99,88,429 P Ltd 18 Mudrika Fiscal

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

36,000 Ltd. 14 Surya Shakti AAECS0505K 9,55,500 4,06,97,791 Marketing PL 15 Super Deal AAECS2143K 1,79,58,750 25,00,46,932 Sales P Ltd 16 Quicker Impex AAACQ0433E 1,07,69,250 3,27,11,907 & Credit PL 17 Satyam Credit AADCS6627H 65,39,250 99,88,429 P Ltd 18 Mudrika Fiscal

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

36,000 Ltd. 14 Surya Shakti AAECS0505K 9,55,500 4,06,97,791 Marketing PL 15 Super Deal AAECS2143K 1,79,58,750 25,00,46,932 Sales P Ltd 16 Quicker Impex AAACQ0433E 1,07,69,250 3,27,11,907 & Credit PL 17 Satyam Credit AADCS6627H 65,39,250 99,88,429 P Ltd 18 Mudrika Fiscal

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

viii) PCIT v. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah[2018] 95 Taxmann.com 46 (Guj) HC) ix) Amar Jewellers Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 254 Taxman 384 (Guj. )(HC) x) Deepraj Hospital (P) Ltd. v. ITO, 41/AGRA/2017, AY: 2010-11 Dtd:01/06/2018 (Agra)(Trib) xi) ITO v. Reliance Corporation (2017) 55 ITR 69 (SN) (Mum.) (Trib.) 3.00 ENTIRE REASONS FOR RE-OPENING ARE BASED

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

viii) PCIT v. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah[2018] 95 Taxmann.com 46 (Guj) HC) ix) Amar Jewellers Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 254 Taxman 384 (Guj. )(HC) x) Deepraj Hospital (P) Ltd. v. ITO, 41/AGRA/2017, AY: 2010-11 Dtd:01/06/2018 (Agra)(Trib) xi) ITO v. Reliance Corporation (2017) 55 ITR 69 (SN) (Mum.) (Trib.) 3.00 ENTIRE REASONS FOR RE-OPENING ARE BASED

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

PUSHPENDRA SINGH CHOUHAN,SEHORE vs. ITO-SEHORE, SEHORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Pushpendra Singh Ito Chouhan, Sehore C/O Adv.Hitesh Chimnani, Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18 South Tukoganj, Near Hotel Crown Palace, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cggps1953Q Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ms. Komal Wadhwani & Komal Kataria, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R

Section 249(4) of the Act will not apply as there is no question of payment of advance tax in reassessment proceedings even though assessee did not file return of income. The Ld. AR has then relied upon the decision of the Raipur Bench of this Tribunal dated 10.4.2024 in case of Page 3 of 12 ITANo.122/Ind/2024 Pushpendra Singh Chouhan

INCOME TAX OFFICER , RAISEN, RAISEN vs. LATE SUDHA AGRAWAL TH. L/H MANMOHAN AGRAWAL, RAISEN

Appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniincome-Tax Officer, Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal, बनाम/ Raisen (L/H: Manmohan Agrawal) Vs. 19/1, Shreeji Enterprise, Near Sbi, Sagar Road, Yashwant Nagar, M.P. (Pan: Abfpa4355G) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

147 of the Act. The want of valid notice affects the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to proceed with the assessment and thus, affects Page 23 of 29 ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17 the validity of the proceedings for assessment or reassessment. A notice issued under Section

SITARAM MUCHHALA,MARDANA vs. ITO KHARGONE, KHARGONE

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

147 r.w.s. 144/144B of the Act, the total income of the assessee was computed & assessed at Rs. 31,92,474/-. Variation in respect of addition u/s 45 was at Rs. 24,79,657/- & variation in respect of addition u/s 56 was at Rs. 7,12,817/-. That the aforesaid “Assessment order” bears No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2022- 23/1050379287(1) & that the same

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained