M/S SHRI GURMUKHDAS CONTRACTORS P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-CENRRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in I

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

153A] or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner.] [Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

1 during the course of regular assessment proceedings u/s 153A of the Act Ld. Assessing Officer observed that the bypass land was purchased at Rs. 13.06 crores. He also observed that the bypass land was sold in two trenches i.e. FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13 for the sale consideration of Rs. 22.50 Crores. On this basis, during

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

1 during the course of regular assessment proceedings u/s 153A of the Act Ld. Assessing Officer observed that the bypass land was purchased at Rs. 13.06 crores. He also observed that the bypass land was sold in two trenches i.e. FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13 for the sale consideration of Rs. 22.50 Crores. On this basis, during

DCIT,CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI KRIHNA KUMAR VERMA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI (Accountant Member)

153A of the Act and the Assessing Officer has accepted the return income shown in the return filed u/s 139 (1) of the Act as assessed income of the assessee. He further explained that no further addition u/s 69A or 69B of the Act has been made against the assessee in the assessment order. 5ITA No.185/Ind/2020 DCIT vs. Shri Krishna

SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

68,34,975/- as accepted in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 did not fall within the definition of ‘undisclosed income’ as provided in Explanation to section 271AAB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961; hence, there arises no question of levy of penalty of Rs. 6,83,498/- under section

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

1)." "Once it is held that the assessment has attained finality, then the Assessing Officer while passing the independent assessment order under section 153A read with section 143(3) could not have disturbed the assessment/reassessment order which has attained finality, unless the materials gathered in the course of the proceedings under section 153A establish that the reliefs

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

1)." "Once it is held that the assessment has attained finality, then the Assessing Officer while passing the independent assessment order under section 153A read with section 143(3) could not have disturbed the assessment/reassessment order which has attained finality, unless the materials gathered in the course of the proceedings under section 153A establish that the reliefs

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

1)." "Once it is held that the assessment has attained finality, then the Assessing Officer while passing the independent assessment order under section 153A read with section 143(3) could not have disturbed the assessment/reassessment order which has attained finality, unless the materials gathered in the course of the proceedings under section 153A establish that the reliefs

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

1)." "Once it is held that the assessment has attained finality, then the Assessing Officer while passing the independent assessment order under section 153A read with section 143(3) could not have disturbed the assessment/reassessment order which has attained finality, unless the materials gathered in the course of the proceedings under section 153A establish that the reliefs

THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE vs. M/S KETI CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) LTD. , INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

68. However, the addition on account of share capital received was made after reducing there from, the income already offered by the respondent on account of peak credit as discussed in Para 12.9 of the assessment order. Penalty proceedings in respect of the addition so made by the AO were initiated in Para 12.10 of the assessment order. Copy

THE DCIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. KALYAN TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

68. However, the addition on account of share capital received was made after reducing there from, the income already offered by the respondent on account of peak credit as discussed in Para 12.9 of the assessment order. Penalty proceedings in respect of the addition so made by the AO were initiated in Para 12.10 of the assessment order. Copy

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

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

1,07,51,000/- received from Shri Rakesh Agrawal were subsequently adjusted against sale of agricultural land made to Shri Rakesh Agrawal and the entire particulars of these advances were duly mentioned in the Sanjay Lunawat ITA No.396/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.32/Ind/2018 registered sale deeds as well. Thus, there was no justification for adding the amount of these advances to the total

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

153A read with section 143(3) of the Act 6 2011-12 5-10-2016 against order under section 143(3) of the Act 7 2012-13 12-12-2016 against order under section 143(3) of the Act 8 2013-14 4-01-2017 against order under section

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

153A read with section 143(3) of the Act 6 2011-12 5-10-2016 against order under section 143(3) of the Act 7 2012-13 12-12-2016 against order under section 143(3) of the Act 8 2013-14 4-01-2017 against order under section

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

153A read with section 143(3) of the Act 6 2011-12 5-10-2016 against order under section 143(3) of the Act 7 2012-13 12-12-2016 against order under section 143(3) of the Act 8 2013-14 4-01-2017 against order under section

THE DCIT-2(1), INDORE vs. M/S. CENTURY 21 MALL (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 of the Act, which the Revenue has taken in the following manner: Century 21 Malls P.Ltd Vs. ACIT (Indore Bench) – (9 Cross-Appeals) 24 “2. Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,17,80,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the IT Act whereas credit worthiness of the creditors

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S. CENTURE 21 MALL PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 of the Act, which the Revenue has taken in the following manner: Century 21 Malls P.Ltd Vs. ACIT (Indore Bench) – (9 Cross-Appeals) 24 “2. Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,17,80,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the IT Act whereas credit worthiness of the creditors

M/S CENTURY 21 MALLS P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 of the Act, which the Revenue has taken in the following manner: Century 21 Malls P.Ltd Vs. ACIT (Indore Bench) – (9 Cross-Appeals) 24 “2. Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,17,80,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the IT Act whereas credit worthiness of the creditors