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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

40A(3) and Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be said to be justified in view of the observations made hereinabove. Further, we find that the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) have not been controverted by the Ld.CIT-DR by bringing any contrary material on record. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the findings

SARTHAK REAL BUILT PVT. LTD, ,INDORE vs. DY, CIT,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

reassessment notice was liable to be quashed. 14. We also find that the Ld. AO mentioned about section 40A(3) in the reasons of reopening and opined that the said transaction of Rs. 7.12 crores attracts the violation of section Ferro Concrete Construction P. Ltd. . ITA No.439/Ind/2017 & others 40A(3). However, we find that the AO deviated from his aforesaid

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

reassessment notice was liable to be quashed. 14. We also find that the Ld. AO mentioned about section 40A(3) in the reasons of reopening and opined that the said transaction of Rs. 7.12 crores attracts the violation of section Ferro Concrete Construction P. Ltd. . ITA No.439/Ind/2017 & others 40A(3). However, we find that the AO deviated from his aforesaid

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

reassessment notice was liable to be quashed. 14. We also find that the Ld. AO mentioned about section 40A(3) in the reasons of reopening and opined that the said transaction of Rs. 7.12 crores attracts the violation of section Ferro Concrete Construction P. Ltd. . ITA No.439/Ind/2017 & others 40A(3). However, we find that the AO deviated from his aforesaid

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S FERRO CONCREATE CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT. LTD INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

reassessment notice was liable to be quashed. 14. We also find that the Ld. AO mentioned about section 40A(3) in the reasons of reopening and opined that the said transaction of Rs. 7.12 crores attracts the violation of section Ferro Concrete Construction P. Ltd. . ITA No.439/Ind/2017 & others 40A(3). However, we find that the AO deviated from his aforesaid

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, has contended that this issue was not forming part of the ‘reasons to believe' as recorded by the AO for initiating these reopening proceedings, further this issue was categorically examined during the regular assessment proceedings and in fact part of the losses amounting to Rs. 5,44,57,527/-was also disallowed

THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, has contended that this issue was not forming part of the ‘reasons to believe' as recorded by the AO for initiating these reopening proceedings, further this issue was categorically examined during the regular assessment proceedings and in fact part of the losses amounting to Rs. 5,44,57,527/-was also disallowed

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, has contended that this issue was not forming part of the ‘reasons to believe' as recorded by the AO for initiating these reopening proceedings, further this issue was categorically examined during the regular assessment proceedings and in fact part of the losses amounting to Rs. 5,44,57,527/-was also disallowed

PRADEEP KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. CIT-I INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Pradeep Khandelwal, Pr. Cit (1), बनाम/ 196,Bajrang Nagar, Indore. Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Akppk2676R Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023

40A(3) only, how can the order of re-assessment be said to be erroneous qua the exemption u/s 54/54F? We raised this query to Ld. DR. The Ld. DR could not submit any convincing reply though he dutifully relied upon impugned revision-order. 6. In our considered understanding, when the issue of exemption u/s 54/54F was never a part

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHOPOAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RASHTRIYA TAKNIKI SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN EVAM ANUNSANDHAN SANSTHAN, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

147 relevant to A.Y. 2000-01 In this case, regular assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 26-3-03 at. a total income of Rs. 24,42,91,550/-. On perusal of the assessment records, it is seen from Clause 17(i) of the Tax Audit Report that Rs.23,70,306/- being liabilities provided for payment of gratuity

PRASAM RAKESH CHOUDHARY,GIRNAR SOCIETY, BAPURAO GALLI, ITWARI, NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

147 relevant to A.Y. 2000-01 In this case, regular assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 26-3-03 at. a total income of Rs. 24,42,91,550/-. On perusal of the assessment records, it is seen from Clause 17(i) of the Tax Audit Report that Rs.23,70,306/- being liabilities provided for payment of gratuity

DEEYA AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BURHANPUR vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshideeya Agrotech Private Ito Burhanpur बनाम/ Limited, Vs. 203, Bahadarpur Road, Burhanpur 450331, Madhya Pradesh, Indore (Pan:Aadcd9603J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pankaj Mogra, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

40A(3). Appellant had not produced any bills or transport receipts which could be right prove the contention of appellant. Therefore, appellant has failed to disprove the findings of A.O. in lacks of the substantiate documents. 5.3 Further, it is pertinent to state that to decide this appeal in timely manner several notices/ communications through ITBA portal were sent

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

147 of the Act was initiated against the assessee and the AO passed reassessment order with the conclusion that the appellant has earned sufficient profits in MCX and NCDEX and incurred losses on NMCE platform so as to set off the profits against such losses and disallowed the impugned amount. Before the authorities below it was contended by the assessee

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

147 of the Act was initiated against the assessee and the AO passed reassessment order with the conclusion that the appellant has earned sufficient profits in MCX and NCDEX and incurred losses on NMCE platform so as to set off the profits against such losses and disallowed the impugned amount. Before the authorities below it was contended by the assessee