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

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

Appeal is allowed

unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nbased on a print out of a hand written document impounded from the i-phone,\nsuch findings are wholly injudicious and opposed to facts and, therefore, be\nquashed and the addition of Rs.14,20,00,000/- as per para 8 of the order is\nwholly unjustified and unlawful and, therefore

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

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

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

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

MOHD HUSSAIN KAGDI,RATLAM vs. THE IT&TP, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Mohd. Hussain Kagdi, Ito (I.T. & T.P.), 15, Tripoliya Gate, Bhopal बनाम/ Ratlam Vs. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Atzpk 4811 B Assessee By Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ca & Shri Apurva Mehta, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05.02.2024

investment of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in treating the same as unexplained cash in hand u/s 69A/69B of the Act which is wrong and contrary to the facts of the case and provisions of the Act. Thus, the addition of Rs. 37,75,000/- is liable to be deleted

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

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

investment made; since it is not necessary to earn dividend income during the year for working of 14A disallowance as is clarified by the CBDT’s Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11th February, 2014. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the aforesaid addition u/s 14A, while incorrectly observing

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

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

investment made; since it is not necessary to earn dividend income during the year for working of 14A disallowance as is clarified by the CBDT’s Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11th February, 2014. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the aforesaid addition u/s 14A, while incorrectly observing

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

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

investment made; since it is not necessary to earn dividend income during the year for working of 14A disallowance as is clarified by the CBDT’s Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11th February, 2014. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the aforesaid addition u/s 14A, while incorrectly observing

MAHENDRA KUMAR VERMA,INDORE vs. ITO-4(1), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 482/Ind/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) बनाम/ Mahendra Kumar Verma Ito-4(1) Flat No.301, Classic Indore Vs. Dream, 5-6, Paliwal Nagar, Indore (M.P.) -452011 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acspv2701P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri S. N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mongra, A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr 17/04/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 even when reopening was done without obtaining proper sanction from the competent authority as mandated by the provisions of section 151 of the Act 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition

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

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

In the result, the impugned order is set aside as & by way of\nremand back to the file of the Ld

unexplained investments\", to be\ntaxed as per the provisions of Section 115BBE of the\nIncome tax Act, 1961.\"\n2.3\nThat it is also recorded in the “Impugned Assessment\nOrder” that following opportunities were given to the assessee\nwhich is tabulated & is reproduced herein :\n\" 1. Details of opportunities given\nType of notice\nCommunication\nDate of Notice\ncommunication\nDate of\ncompliance

NILIMA KOTHARI,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSTT. CENTRE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

unexplained expenditure u/s 69C at Rs. 1,22,341/-. Income assessed at Rs.30,11,605/-. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) raising various legal issues and grounds on merit but failed to succeed. 3.2 Now the assesse is in appeal before this tribunal. The assesse has raised legal issues challenging the validity of notice issue u/s

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

reassessment proceeding u/s 147/144\n{mistakenly mentioned 143(3)} relying upon the decision of Delhi High\nCourt in the case of PCIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. 383\nITR 448 whereas the facts of the case are distinguishable that the\nreturn of income in the present case was not filled within the time\nallowed in the notice u/s