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

Appeal is allowed

68.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["147", "144B", "68", "143(2)", "142(1)", "148"], "issues": "Whether the additions made by the AO treating

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

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

68 of the Act. The CIT(A) granted partial relief of Rs. 5,00,000, sustaining an addition of Rs. 23,07,500. The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to fully substantiate the sources, the matter was not adjudicated conclusively by the lower authorities.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "143(3)", "144B

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

Appeals are allowed

sections": [ "253", "68", "147", "144B", "271(1)(c)", "115BBE", "246A", "132(4)", "133A", "131" ], "issues": "Whether the loan of Rs. 23,00,000/- claimed

SANDHYA SINGH,ROHIT NAGAR, BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(3) BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 144B of the Act treating the entire sum of ₹3,62,68,600/- as unexplained money under section

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 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

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

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

SUNIL,INDORE vs. ITO 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

68.", "held": "The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to present their case, with the assurance of full cooperation. The AO was directed to pass a speaking order after affording a hearing.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "144", "144B

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed\nPronounced in open court on 19

68, of the Act as mentioned above i.e.\nnamely the (i) identity and (ii) creditworthiness of the lenders and\nthe (iii) genuineness of transactions.\n9. That however, the A.O. completed the re-opened assessment\nvide order dated 30.03.2022 passed under section 147 read with\nsection 144B

MANISH KUMAR AGRAWAL,NEEMUCH vs. NFAC,DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

sections": [ "147", "144B", "68", "148", "250(6)" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the assessee's grounds and submissions

PRAVEEN AGRAWAL ,INDORE vs. DCIT 4(1) INDORE, INDORE

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

sections": [ "253", "250", "143(3)", "144B", "246A", "68", "57", "115BBE", "133(6)", "144" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) order

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), 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

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

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

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

144B of the Act was passed on 19.12.2022.\nSUBMISSIONS\n01) We humbly submit that regular books of accounts are maintained by the appellant company\nand besides manufacturing activity, it is also engaged in trading and sale of refined oil\nand total turnover including other income was Rs. 685.75 crores during the year. Purchases\nare being effected from registered dealers