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

143(1)(a) of the Act. Subsequently for carrying 4 Smt. Nilima Kothari out the reassessment proceedings the notice u/s 148 of the Act issued on 16.04.2021 in compliance the assesse filed the return on 07.12.2021. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agrawal 444 ITR 1

ACIT 5 (1), BHOPAL vs. M/S VINDHYA SOLVENT PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 of the Act. 3. The assessee, a Private Company, filed its return of income on 07.08.2014 declaring total loss at Rs.5556/-. The case was selected through CASS for limited scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, accordingly, was issued on 18.09.2015 followed by notice under Section 142(1

RAJESH BAJAJ,BURHANPUR vs. THE ACIT , KHANDWA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Rajesh Kumar Bajaj Acit 13, Rajesh Industries, Vs. Khandwa Industrial Estate Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Ahnpb0036F Appellant By Shri S.S. Sheetal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashishporwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2020 O R D E R

1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and thus taxing the Income declared at the maximum rate. 2. The appellate order being not based on facts, and in law, is illegal & wrong. 3. The appellant craves leave to add/alter/amend the above grounds of appeal are and when, necessity or occasion arises.” 3. Brief facts of the case as culled

ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN vs. A ONE ENCLAVE, UJJAIN

In the result, grounds taken by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1(1), V/S M/S. A One Enclave, Ujjain 3687/1, Hariphatak Road, Ujjain

143(2) and 142(1) of the Act to the assessee. 3. During the year under appeal on 12.7.2011 survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee. During the survey proceedings it was found that unaccounted investment was made out of books in the construction of hotel. Assessee agreed to declare the unaccounted

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the ‘Act’) dated 22.03.2013 framed by JCIT, Range-3, Indore. 2. Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A):- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Ld. CIT(A) is justified

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 2(1), UJJAIN vs. SMT. SAROJ THAKUR, UJJAIN

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14

1,50,00,000. [PB 19-24] It was for the above mentioned business exigency as compelled by IDC through its Lol, that the loan was availed in cash during the impugned year. In the assessment proceedings completed u/s 143(3), no addition has been made on account of the unsecured loan availed by the assessee. All these loans have

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

1-02-2018 against order under section 143(3) of the Act 2. All these appeals have arisen consequent upon search action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 carried out at the premises of M.P.Bullion group of cases, where the assesses are part of the said Group. Since facts, circumstances and the issues are inter

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

1-02-2018 against order under section 143(3) of the Act 2. All these appeals have arisen consequent upon search action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 carried out at the premises of M.P.Bullion group of cases, where the assesses are part of the said Group. Since facts, circumstances and the issues are inter

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

1-02-2018 against order under section 143(3) of the Act 2. All these appeals have arisen consequent upon search action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 carried out at the premises of M.P.Bullion group of cases, where the assesses are part of the said Group. Since facts, circumstances and the issues are inter

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

68 are fulfilled, there is hardly any scope to invoke the provisions of section 263 of the Act, alleging introduction of unexplained funds in the form of cash credits. The burden so shifts on revenue to establish that such credits has actually come from Asseessee Company itself. However, as stated above, no evidence was available on record by which

GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

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

143(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961. No. dated have concealed the particulars of your Income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such Income. You are hereby requested to appear before me on 15/12/2017 at 11:30 AM and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271AAB of the Income

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘A.Y.’) 2011-12 with the following grounds: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘A.Y.’) 2011-12 with the following grounds: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘A.Y.’) 2011-12 with the following grounds: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE vs. PUNJAB RETAIL (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2017-18 with the following grounds:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 14,07,74,148/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of excess stock found during

M/S SUPREMO INDIA LTD ,INDORE vs. THE AIT CENTRAL 3, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D i.e. from residuary category w.e.f 01.04.2017. Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of CIT vs Vatika Township Pvt Ltd (2014) 24 ITJ 532 (SC): (2014) 271 CTR 1: (2014) 227 Taxmann 121 has held that “An amendment made to the taxing statute can be said to be intended to remove

M/S NIKHIL ESTATE P LTD,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE (3) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Nikhil Estate Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Central)-3 M-102, Mezzanine, Floor, Indore Dhan Trident, P. No.B-3 Pu- Vs. 4, Sch. No.54, Vijay Nagar Square, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 8056 D Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.06.2023

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D i.e. from residuary category w.e.f 01.04.2017. Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of CIT vs Vatika Township Pvt Ltd (2014) 24 ITJ 532 (SC): (2014) 271 CTR 1: (2014) 227 Taxmann 121 has held that “An amendment made to the taxing statute can be said to be intended to remove

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 14A was warranted, was a debatable fact. In any event, even if it were not debatable, the error by the Assessing Officer is not “unsustainable”. Possibly he could have taken another view; yet, that he did not do so, would not render his opinion an unsustainable one, warranting exercise of section 263.” 43. Hon’ble Gujarat High