MS MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2 (1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

u/s 143(3) and there was no failure on the part of assessee to disclose any material fact necessary for regular assessment. 14. Then Ld. AR submitted that the assessee, immediately after receiving copy of aforesaid reasons from AO, filed a strong objection to AO vide letter dated 28.06.2019 raising following issues: (i) that there was no allegation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -5(1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT. LTD., BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

u/s 143(3) and there was no failure on the part of assessee to disclose any material fact necessary for regular assessment. 14. Then Ld. AR submitted that the assessee, immediately after receiving copy of aforesaid reasons from AO, filed a strong objection to AO vide letter dated 28.06.2019 raising following issues: (i) that there was no allegation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5 1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

u/s 143(3) and there was no failure on the part of assessee to disclose any material fact necessary for regular assessment. 14. Then Ld. AR submitted that the assessee, immediately after receiving copy of aforesaid reasons from AO, filed a strong objection to AO vide letter dated 28.06.2019 raising following issues: (i) that there was no allegation

MS MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2 (1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

u/s 143(3) and there was no failure on the part of assessee to disclose any material fact necessary for regular assessment. 14. Then Ld. AR submitted that the assessee, immediately after receiving copy of aforesaid reasons from AO, filed a strong objection to AO vide letter dated 28.06.2019 raising following issues: (i) that there was no allegation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 5(1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

u/s 143(3) and there was no failure on the part of assessee to disclose any material fact necessary for regular assessment. 14. Then Ld. AR submitted that the assessee, immediately after receiving copy of aforesaid reasons from AO, filed a strong objection to AO vide letter dated 28.06.2019 raising following issues: (i) that there was no allegation

MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD ,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT -2- (1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

u/s 143(3) and there was no failure on the part of assessee to disclose any material fact necessary for regular assessment. 14. Then Ld. AR submitted that the assessee, immediately after receiving copy of aforesaid reasons from AO, filed a strong objection to AO vide letter dated 28.06.2019 raising following issues: (i) that there was no allegation

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

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’s-Co. The AO seized certain material to say that minimal or in- substantial

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

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’s-Co. The AO seized certain material to say that minimal or in- substantial

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

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’s-Co. The AO seized certain material to say that minimal or in- substantial

M/S. SANWARIA AGROILS LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

u/s. 80I and 80IA had been provide to A.O. while completing the original assessment and there was no failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts the re-opening beyond 4 years was not valid..” 8. The power to make assessment or reassessment within four years of the end of the relevant assessment year would

THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD., INDORE

In the result appeals of the revenue & assessee are

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

70,000/-,Rs.18,000/- Rs.12,50,000/- & Rs.12,71,500/- on account of unexplained receipt on protective basis without appreciating the facts and evidences brought into light by the AO during the assessment proceedings.” IT(SS)A Nos.101 & 106/Ind/16 (Pankaj Kalani & Dipak Kalani): “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting

DCIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result appeals of the revenue & assessee are

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

70,000/-,Rs.18,000/- Rs.12,50,000/- & Rs.12,71,500/- on account of unexplained receipt on protective basis without appreciating the facts and evidences brought into light by the AO during the assessment proceedings.” IT(SS)A Nos.101 & 106/Ind/16 (Pankaj Kalani & Dipak Kalani): “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting

DCIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result appeals of the revenue & assessee are

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

70,000/-,Rs.18,000/- Rs.12,50,000/- & Rs.12,71,500/- on account of unexplained receipt on protective basis without appreciating the facts and evidences brought into light by the AO during the assessment proceedings.” IT(SS)A Nos.101 & 106/Ind/16 (Pankaj Kalani & Dipak Kalani): “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting

THE ACIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result appeals of the revenue & assessee are

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

70,000/-,Rs.18,000/- Rs.12,50,000/- & Rs.12,71,500/- on account of unexplained receipt on protective basis without appreciating the facts and evidences brought into light by the AO during the assessment proceedings.” IT(SS)A Nos.101 & 106/Ind/16 (Pankaj Kalani & Dipak Kalani): “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. KUMARI SHEETAL GARG, INDORE

In the result Ground No. 1& 2 of the

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Dcit-3(1), Kumari Sheetal Garg, Indore Vs. 8/2, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Afhpg9179G Revenue By Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ca Date Of Hearing 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 O R D E R

70 CCH 1264 (SC) 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the assessee. We will first take up Ground No.3 raised by the revenue challenging the findings of Ld. CIT(A) holding that the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s

GOUTAM MEDICOSE,DHAR vs. ITO, DHAR

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

70,97,656/- vide penalty-order dated 18.09.2023. Aggrieved by both orders i.e. assessment-order as well as penalty-order, the assessee filed two separate appeals before CIT(A) and contested but did not get any success. Now, the assessee has come in next appeals before ITAT. 3. Since these appeals are inter-related, they were heard together

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

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

70,97,656/- vide penalty-order dated 18.09.2023. Aggrieved by both orders i.e. assessment-order as well as penalty-order, the assessee filed two separate appeals before CIT(A) and contested but did not get any success. Now, the assessee has come in next appeals before ITAT. 3. Since these appeals are inter-related, they were heard together