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

151(ii) of the Act hence without obtaining prior approval from said authority, notice issued after the period of more than three years from the end of the A.Y.2016-17, being invalid, proceedings were ab-initio void hence assessment order passed should have been quashed. 03) Issue: Validity of Information for issuance of notice under section 148 : That the Commissioner

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

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

151 from the assessee is duly reflected 7.5 Copy of bank statement of the assessee duly highlighting the amount as 152 received from the unsecured loan creditor In view of the above documentary evidences, it is apparent that the assessee satisfactorily discharged the primary onus cast upon him under section 68

DCIT-4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COM. PVT. LTD., TALOJA, RAIGARH

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 in the year under appeal................." 17. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition made by the Ld. AO observed as follows: “5.14 The appellant has submitted various documents in support of its claim. The said documents were verified by this office. After verification of the same, following facts emerge out which

YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY (P) LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN FROLIC REALTY (P) LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(1) , INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 in the year under appeal................." 17. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition made by the Ld. AO observed as follows: “5.14 The appellant has submitted various documents in support of its claim. The said documents were verified by this office. After verification of the same, following facts emerge out which

GOVIND HARINARAYAN AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 of the Act at Rs.28,47,833/- and addition of brokerage expenses at Rs.89,935/-. Again complete details of purchase and sales were filed along with the Demat account and bank statement. However, Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied and he confirmed the view taken by Ld. A.O observing that the assessee is indulged in arranging bogus LTCG

SAPAN SHAH,INDORE vs. ACIT-4(I), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 of the Act at Rs.28,47,833/- and addition of brokerage expenses at Rs.89,935/-. Again complete details of purchase and sales were filed along with the Demat account and bank statement. However, Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied and he confirmed the view taken by Ld. A.O observing that the assessee is indulged in arranging bogus LTCG

MANISH GOVIND AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 of the Act at Rs.28,47,833/- and addition of brokerage expenses at Rs.89,935/-. Again complete details of purchase and sales were filed along with the Demat account and bank statement. However, Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied and he confirmed the view taken by Ld. A.O observing that the assessee is indulged in arranging bogus LTCG

DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 of the Act at Rs.28,47,833/- and addition of brokerage expenses at Rs.89,935/-. Again complete details of purchase and sales were filed along with the Demat account and bank statement. However, Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied and he confirmed the view taken by Ld. A.O observing that the assessee is indulged in arranging bogus LTCG

SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 of the Act at Rs.28,47,833/- and addition of brokerage expenses at Rs.89,935/-. Again complete details of purchase and sales were filed along with the Demat account and bank statement. However, Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied and he confirmed the view taken by Ld. A.O observing that the assessee is indulged in arranging bogus LTCG

PRAYANK JAIN,INDORE vs. ACIT5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 of the Act at Rs.28,47,833/- and addition of brokerage expenses at Rs.89,935/-. Again complete details of purchase and sales were filed along with the Demat account and bank statement. However, Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied and he confirmed the view taken by Ld. A.O observing that the assessee is indulged in arranging bogus LTCG

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

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Section 68 is not applicable, reliance being placed on the following\njudicial precedents:\n• Piyush Jain v. Income Tax Officer (ITA No. 368/IND/2024)\n•\nACIT, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam v. Hirapanna Jewellers [2021] 128\ntaxmann.com 291 (Visakhapatnam – Trib.)\nMahesh Kumar Gupta v. ACIT [2023] 151

THE ITO 4(1), BHOPAL vs. RELIABLE GLOBAL VENTURE P LTD, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09

151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining the addition of Rs.80,00,000/- out of the addition of Rs.2,60,00,000/- made by the assessing officer under section 68

M/S RELIABLE GLOBAL VENTURE P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 4 (1), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09

151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining the addition of Rs.80,00,000/- out of the addition of Rs.2,60,00,000/- made by the assessing officer under section 68

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

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

151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132-A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI RAUNAK MARU, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated u/s 132 or books of accounts, other documents or any other assets are requisitioned u/s 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the assessing officer shall –“ 13. It is also seen that the words ‘to the contrary’ are not mentioned in section

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1,, INDORE vs. SHRI RAJUL BHARGAVA, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated u/s 132 or books of accounts, other documents or any other assets are requisitioned u/s 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the assessing officer shall –“ 13. It is also seen that the words ‘to the contrary’ are not mentioned in section

ACME FURNITURE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoacme Furniture Private Limited, Ito 1(1), 102, Dilpasand Residency, Indore Vs. 4/1 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaica1324L Assessee By S/Shri Apurva Mehta & Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.10.2024

Section 151 of the Act. Thus, the reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in not appreciating that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Ld. AO upon the assessee company, which has been struck

RADHESHYAM AGARWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

68, section 69, section 69A,\nsection\n69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of\npenalty, in addition to tax payable under section 115BBE, a sum computed at the rate of ten\nper cent of the tax payable under clause (i) of sub-section