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

Unexplained investment in purchase of Rs. 10,63,37,500/- land on substantive basis Total Assessed Income Rs. 10,63,37,500/- Rounded off Rs. 10,63,37,500/- Being aggrieved with the assessment orders for both the 6. A.Y. 2008-09 and A.Y. 2009-10, the appellant company preferred appeals before the learned CIT(A)-2, Indore. During

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

Unexplained investment in purchase of Rs. 10,63,37,500/- land on substantive basis Total Assessed Income Rs. 10,63,37,500/- Rounded off Rs. 10,63,37,500/- Being aggrieved with the assessment orders for both the 6. A.Y. 2008-09 and A.Y. 2009-10, the appellant company preferred appeals before the learned CIT(A)-2, Indore. During

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

SHRI KHEMRAJ SINGH CHAUHAN,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHARY,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

BIRENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,GWALIOR vs. ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SAHU,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH DHARIWAL,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA,DABRA vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

SHRI KAMLESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI VINOD VAISH, BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA PARASHAR,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

SHRI LALTA PRASAD CHOUDHARY,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

ANIL FIROJIYA,BHAKT NAGAR UJJAIN vs. DY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYKAR BHAWAN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Anil Firojiya, Dy. Commissioner Of 6, Bhakt Nagar, Income-Tax, बनाम/ Dashera Maidan, Assessment Unit, Vs. Ujjain New Delhi (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaipf7302A Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2024

reassessing the case under consideration, the AO has added Rs. 10,29,672/- on account of unexplained investment and issued order u/s 147

RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 5, SEHORE, SEHORE

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

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add any new ground of appeal OR alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. “ 3. Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 02.02.2026 when the Ld. AR for & on behalf of the Assessee appeared before

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

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

reassessment order. The AO has not brought any material cord to show that the assessee was earning income from a particular source. Furthermore, the AO has estimated the income of the assessee at Rs. 2,50,000/- without any basis. In our view, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that the action u/s 147 cannot be justified Page

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

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

reassessment order. The AO has not brought any material cord to show that the assessee was earning income from a particular source. Furthermore, the AO has estimated the income of the assessee at Rs. 2,50,000/- without any basis. In our view, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that the action u/s 147 cannot be justified Page