ACIT (CENTRAL UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S ARIHANT FUTURE AND COMMODITIES LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

147 on 26.11.2019 wherein certain additions were made by the Ld. Assessing Officer (in short Ld. AO). The aggrieved assessee challenged the reopening proceedings and also the additions made before the Ld. CIT(A) and the addition made by the Ld. AO were deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), hence the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. However

THE ACIT, CENTRAL - UJJAIN, INDORE vs. M/S ARIHANT FUTURE & COMMADITIES LTD , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

147 on 26.11.2019 wherein certain additions were made by the Ld. Assessing Officer (in short Ld. AO). The aggrieved assessee challenged the reopening proceedings and also the additions made before the Ld. CIT(A) and the addition made by the Ld. AO were deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), hence the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. However

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-UJJAIN, INDORE vs. M/S ARIHANT CAPITALS MARKETS LTD , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

147 on 26.11.2019 wherein certain additions were made by the Ld. Assessing Officer (in short Ld. AO). The aggrieved assessee challenged the reopening proceedings and also the additions made before the Ld. CIT(A) and the addition made by the Ld. AO were deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), hence the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. However

SUNAYANA INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD,INDORE vs. PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisunayana Investment Company Pcit-1, Ltd, Indore Part-B Of 417 Chetak Centre Annex, Vs. R.N.T. Marg, Near Hotel Shreemaya, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaucs5765M Assessee By Shri Sohit Gupta & Ms. Alifiya Ali, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.10.2024 O R D E R

reassessment order was passed on 27.03.2023 placed at page No. 194 to 205 of the paper book, whereby the A.O has made an addition of Rs.5,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act in the name of the assessee but under different PAN. Therefore, the said issue was not at all subject matter of the order

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

SANJEEV AGRAWAL ,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

reassessment proceedings.”\nThus, in the light of judicial rulings cited above, it is clear that the\nAO's action of resorting to re-assessment u/s 147 by-passing the\ncompulsory scrutiny mandated by CBDT Instruction, is invalid and hence\nthe assessment framed by AO u/s 147 cannot be sustained. Therefore, we\nquash the order passed by AO. The assessee succeeds

M/S JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-II, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Jayganga Exim India Pvt. Dy. Cit, Limited Central-Ii, [Formerly Known As ‘Jay Jyoti Bhopal (India) Pvt. Ltd.’] बनाम/ 26, Col. Biswas Road, Ground Floor, Vs. West Side Flat, Kolkata (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacj 8822 E Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

cash credit u/s 68, is beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, unjustified, against the principles of natural justice, void ab initio and barred by limitation also. (v) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of ld. AO in making aggregate addition

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)

unexplained cash credit. During the course of appellate proceeding the AO vide letter F.No. ACIT(Cen)-1/Ind/ Remand Report/2017-18 dated 29.05.2017 has stated as under: i. The search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act were carried out on the business as well as residential premises of the Agroh group and PATH Group on 27.08.2014. ii. During

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)

unexplained cash credit. During the course of appellate proceeding the AO vide letter F.No. ACIT(Cen)-1/Ind/ Remand Report/2017-18 dated 29.05.2017 has stated as under: i. The search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act were carried out on the business as well as residential premises of the Agroh group and PATH Group on 27.08.2014. ii. During

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

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

credits in the cash book of M/s. Panjwani Polypropleyene (Prop. Shri Kamal Panjwani) at Rs. 10,000/-. 5. The appellant submits that the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Indore, has erred in maintaining the addition made on account of Foreign Tour expenses at Rs. 25,000/-. 6. The appellant submits that the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Indore, has erred in maintaining

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

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

credits in the cash book of M/s. Panjwani Polypropleyene (Prop. Shri Kamal Panjwani) at Rs. 10,000/-. 5. The appellant submits that the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Indore, has erred in maintaining the addition made on account of Foreign Tour expenses at Rs. 25,000/-. 6. The appellant submits that the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Indore, has erred in maintaining

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

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

credits in the cash book of M/s. Panjwani Polypropleyene (Prop. Shri Kamal Panjwani) at Rs. 10,000/-. 5. The appellant submits that the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Indore, has erred in maintaining the addition made on account of Foreign Tour expenses at Rs. 25,000/-. 6. The appellant submits that the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Indore, has erred in maintaining

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

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

credits in the cash book of M/s. Panjwani Polypropleyene (Prop. Shri Kamal Panjwani) at Rs. 10,000/-. 5. The appellant submits that the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Indore, has erred in maintaining the addition made on account of Foreign Tour expenses at Rs. 25,000/-. 6. The appellant submits that the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Indore, has erred in maintaining

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

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

credits in the cash book of M/s. Panjwani Polypropleyene (Prop. Shri Kamal Panjwani) at Rs. 10,000/-. 5. The appellant submits that the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Indore, has erred in maintaining the addition made on account of Foreign Tour expenses at Rs. 25,000/-. 6. The appellant submits that the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Indore, has erred in maintaining

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

cash credit u/s 68 of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act from two companies. 2.2 That the assessee is a company under company’s Act 2013. Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was filed on 03.10.2013 declaring income of Rs. 49,570/-. 2.3 That the Income Tax Department was in the possession of certain credible information

SANDEEP KUMAR YADAV,BETUL vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHO

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshisandeep Kumar Yadav, Nfac, बना Palsyapalsya, Delhi म/ Palsya, Vs. The. Bhainsdehi, Betul (Pan: Afnpy3295D) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Unexplained Cash Credits and The learned CIT Appeals confirming the addition, without going in to the merits of the case. 8. That the above grounds are independent to each other”. Page 8 of 13 Sandeep Kumar Yadav ITA No. 501/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2013-14 3. Recording of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 21.04.2025 when none

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

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