SHRI PREMNARAYAN,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

147 by issuing notice u/s 148. As regards amount of Rs. 1,06,09,170/- it is submitted that amount of Rs.53,04,485/- only received by me against sale of such land. Wrongly whole amount shown as exempt income in return of income filed on the basis of amount appeared in form 26AS. I have received only Rs.53

SMT. SHARDA,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

147 by issuing notice u/s 148. As regards amount of Rs. 1,06,09,170/- it is submitted that amount of Rs.53,04,485/- only received by me against sale of such land. Wrongly whole amount shown as exempt income in return of income filed on the basis of amount appeared in form 26AS. I have received only Rs.53

RAJ KUMAR PALIA,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - ITARSI, CAMP AT BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2009-10 Raj Kumar Paliya Dcit/Acit M/S. Da Construction

TDS was required to be deducted u/s 194C but was not deducted.” [emphasis supplied] 3.2 Aggrieved, the assessee again carried matter in appeal to CIT(A) whereupon the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of depreciation but restricted disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) to 30% of Rs. 2,16,333/- taking into account the subsequent clarificatory amendment made by Govt

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AVILABLE FINANCE LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

reassessment proceedings after an expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years on the basis of certain information coming to his possession later on after obtaining approval from competent authority. Further, there is no restriction in the Income Tax Act that the case cannot be reopened u/s 14B on the basis of information collected during

DY. CIT -1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

reassessment proceedings after an expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years on the basis of certain information coming to his possession later on after obtaining approval from competent authority. Further, there is no restriction in the Income Tax Act that the case cannot be reopened u/s 14B on the basis of information collected during

M/S AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD.,INDORE vs. THEDCIT 1(1) , INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

reassessment proceedings after an expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years on the basis of certain information coming to his possession later on after obtaining approval from competent authority. Further, there is no restriction in the Income Tax Act that the case cannot be reopened u/s 14B on the basis of information collected during

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)

reassessment order dated 03.03.2016 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act was without jurisdiction. The appellant prays that the order dated 03.03.2016 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act be quashed as without jurisdiction.” 15. Challenging the order of first-appeal referred to in above paragraph No. 13, the revenue has come

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)

reassessment order dated 03.03.2016 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act was without jurisdiction. The appellant prays that the order dated 03.03.2016 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act be quashed as without jurisdiction.” 15. Challenging the order of first-appeal referred to in above paragraph No. 13, the revenue has come

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. DILIP KUMAR MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN HUF, INDORE

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Dilip Kumar Mahendra Acit (Central)-1, Vs. Kumar Jain, 6, Near Jagdale School, Indore Janki Nagar, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaehd1394J Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr.Dr Appellant By Shri Mahesh Agrawal, Adv. Date Of Hearing 05.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement .02.2021 O R D E R

reassessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 30.11.2018 assessing income at Rs.1,92,70,500/- adding unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE at Rs. 1,86,00,000/- and unaccounted interest income at Rs.2,03,610/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. 4. Now the Revenue is in appeal before

SHRI KRISHAN BAHADUR SAXENA,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:1997-98

TDS deducted by employer-college as assessee has life threat and is not in a position to visit his college. 7. Apropos Ground No.2 wherein the assessee has challenged the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act by the Assessing Officer was bad in law. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that that it is a settled

SHIVKRIPA DEVCONS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER OR OTHER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

reassessment, the assessee had submitted details as were called for. 2.7 That the objection was filed by the assessee on 09.03.2021 and same was disposed off later electronically. 2.8 That the Ld. A.O on internal pages 2 to 6 of the impugned assessment order has explained the modus operandi and brief facts of the case too. 2.9 That

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

147(a). 13. In the case of Kalaynji Mabji & Cop. V. CIT 9(1097) 102 ITR 287 (SC) it was held that reassessment can be initiated even if information may be obtained from record of original assessment. 14. The learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that assessment was reopened on the basis of audit objection, which is not permissible

PRAMOD PALIWAL,KHANWA vs. ACIT KHANWA, KHANWA

In the result Ground No. 1 (a) &

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10 Shri Pramod Paliwal, Acit, Prop. M/S. Pragati Vs. Khandwa Construction, Ramkishanganj, Khandwa (M.P) (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Adapp8012A Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, Cas Date Of Hearing 10.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 17.10.2019 O R D E R

TDS certificates claimed in the return of income vis-à-vis gross receipt shown in the Profit & Loss account, the alleged difference of Rs.92,05,981/- was considered to be an income escaped from the assessment. Notices u/s 148 of the Act were issued on 21.3.2016 for carrying out re- assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. Assessee challenged

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 85,87,725/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 312/Ind/2018 – AY 2012-13: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 85,87,725/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 312/Ind/2018 – AY 2012-13: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 85,87,725/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 312/Ind/2018 – AY 2012-13: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 85,87,725/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 312/Ind/2018 – AY 2012-13: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 85,87,725/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 312/Ind/2018 – AY 2012-13: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances