SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-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

144B, and unless the prejudice to the interests of the revenue ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari is shown, the jurisdiction under section 263(1) cannot be exercised by the Commissioner, even though the order is erroneous. The argument that such an order may possibly be challenged in appeal by the assessee, and for this reason it is prejudicial

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 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

144B, and unless the prejudice to the interests of the revenue ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari is shown, the jurisdiction under section 263(1) cannot be exercised by the Commissioner, even though the order is erroneous. The argument that such an order may possibly be challenged in appeal by the assessee, and for this reason it is prejudicial

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

144B, and unless the prejudice to the interests of the revenue ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari is shown, the jurisdiction under section 263(1) cannot be exercised by the Commissioner, even though the order is erroneous. The argument that such an order may possibly be challenged in appeal by the assessee, and for this reason it is prejudicial

VIRENDRA KUMAR MANDOT,, SADAR BAZAR SAILANA RATLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO-1, RATLAM, RATLAM

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

144B of the IT. Act, 1961 having bearing the following issues: 3.1 Unexplained Cash Credit u/s 68: The assessee is a proprietor of concern Vinod Traders engaged in the wholesale business of grocery items. On examination of details available/gathered on record, it is noticed that during the F.Y. 2016-17 relevant to A.Y. 2017-18, the assessee has made cash

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

144B, and unless the prejudice to the interests of the revenue is shown, the jurisdiction under section 263(1) cannot be exercised by the Commissioner, even though the order is erroneous. The argument that such an order may possibly be challenged in appeal by the assessee, and for this reason it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue

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

68 of the Act and confirmation thereof by Ld. CIT(A) is unjustified and bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 07) Section 69C: Unexplained expenditure: That the Commissioner of Income tax (A) further erred in law in confirming the addition of Rs.1,22,341/- which was made solely on presumption that the appellant arrangec accommodation entry

M/S RAS DEVCON PRIVATE LIMITED ,/, SANVID NAGAR, KANADIA ROAD, INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE, AAYKAR BHAWAN, OPPOSITE WHITE CHURCH ROAD, INDORE

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

68, of the Act as mentioned above i.e. namely the (i) identity and (ii) creditworthiness of the lenders and the (iii) genuineness of transactions. 9. That however, the A.O. completed the re-opened assessment vide order dated 30.03.2022 passed under section 147 read with section 144B

ASHOK AIREN,MALHARGANJ vs. DCIT 4(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Section 68 of the Act. The Appellant prays that the said addition be directed to be deleted. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend any or all grounds at the time of hearing. 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the AO, taking into account an information received from Investigation Wing of Income

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN YUVAK SANGH,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

144B of the Income-I tax Act, 1981 even when the appellant has duly filed income-tax return in response to notice under section 148 of the Act and has duly filed submissions along with relevant supporting documents in response to notices issued during the course of re-assessment proceedings. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances

SHAILESH KALWADIA (HUF) ,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BPL-C-(91)(1), UJJAIN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

144B of the Act, the total income of the Assessee was computed & assessed at Rs. 19,96,350/-. The total income as per the return of income was at Rs.1,53,375/-. The addition of Rs.18,42,978/- was made as income from undisclosed sources in guise of share transaction. The tax on total income assessed was directed

SHAILESH KALWADIA (HUF),UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BPL-C(91)(1), BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

144B of the Act, the total income of the Assessee was computed & assessed at Rs. 19,96,350/-. The total income as per the return of income was at Rs.1,53,375/-. The addition of Rs.18,42,978/- was made as income from undisclosed sources in guise of share transaction. The tax on total income assessed was directed

JAYA GARG,INDORE vs. ACIT NFAC, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Jaya Garg, Acit-Nfac, C-4/5, Shivkripa Colony, New Delhi बनाम/ Sajan Nagar Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Agtpg 4247 L Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah Ca, Shri Soumya Bumb Ca, Ms. Ayushi Garg Ca & Ms. Anshika Goyal Ca - Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 5.04.2024

section 144B the of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2014-15, the assessee has filed this appeal. Page 1 of 18 Jaya Garg, Indore ITA No. 418/Ind/2023 – AY 2014-15 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed original return of income

GLOBUS HOUSING,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

144B of the Act the total income of the assessee was computed at Rs.1,83,77,290/-. The assessee’s Return of Income as per ITR filed u/s 148 was Rs.93,04,130/-. An Addition of Rs.87,20,000/- was made on account of (1) unexplained money u/s 68 of the Act (2) on account of undisclosed income of Rs.3

SATISH KUMAR RADHESHYAM CHOUDHARI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

144B of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” preferred an first appeal in terms of Section 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) and who by impugned order at para 3.4 has observed and avered as under:- “3.4 During the course

FAITH BUILDERS & REALTIES P LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1,, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2015-16 Faith Builders & Realties, P. Pr. Cit-1, Ltd., Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No. Aabcf7558A Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.08.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’ For Short) By Ld. Pr. Cit-1 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 31.01.2020.The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

68,47,432/- (-) Rs. 10,31,99,121/-) was thus sale price less direct expenses till Faith Builders & Realities Ltd. 31.03.2015. Accordingly, the amount of Rs. 1,36,48,310/- did not represent the income for the year. In the written submission filed before the Ld. Commissioner the details were submitted. 7c. The Ld. PCIT further observed that no reference

M/S. RAJDHANI LAND & HOUSING CORPORATION,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed and

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2007-08 M/S Rajdhani Land & Pr. Cit-1, Housing Corporation, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aahfr4618J Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal & Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ars Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.08.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’ For Short) By Ld. Pr. Cit-1 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 20.09.2019. Rajdhani Land & Housing

68-72] B.Ld. AO based on the documentary evidences placed on record allowed the claim of the assessee u/s BO(IB)(10} of Rs. 1,11,55,537. One of the plausible views was taken by the Ld. AO based on documentary evidences, applicable law and the jurisprudence available at that point of time. 9.Enquiry conducted

KHOJEMA BOHRA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the grounds raised on this issue stands "Dismissed"

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshikhojema Bohra

144B of the Act the total income of the assessee was computed & assessed at Rs.29,56,940/-. The total income as per the return of income was at Rs.6,56,940/-. The addition u/s 68 of Rs.23,00,000/- was made. The aforesaid assessment order is hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Assessment Order". The relevant portion of para

JAYA GARG,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Ms.Jaya Garg, Income-Tax Officer, C-4-C-5, Shvkripa Colony, Nfac, बनाम/ Indore New Delhi Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Agtpg4247L Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Shri Soumya Bumb, Ars Revenue By Shri K. Bala Murali Krishna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2015-16, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds: 1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and applicable law, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming that LAO has not applied mind and initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. The notice