M/S LIMAGRAIN INDIA PVT. LTD. ,SECUNDERABAD, HYDRABAD vs. N.F.A.C, DELHI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Limagrain India National Faceless Private Limited, Assessment Centre, H.No. 1-8-201 To 203, Delhi Ashoka My Home बनाम/ Chambers, Flat No. 208, 209, 2Nd Vs. Floor, S.P.Road, Secunderabad, Hyderabad (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaccb6862A Assessee By Shri Pankaj Sancheti, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.01.2024

section 144C(13) & 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal. Page 1 of 20 M/s.Limagrain India Private Ltd., Indore. Vs. NFAC,Delhi Assessment year 2017-18 2. The registry has informed that that the present appeal is filed after a delay of 11 days and therefore

DHIRENDRA INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,NEEMUCH vs. PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

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

M/S. CHARITRA GOLD PVT. LTD.,RATLAM vs. THE PR. CIT, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

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

SHRI ADITYA MUNDRA,DEWAS vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

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

SHRI GOVIND DAS MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

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

SHRI MANISH MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

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

SHRI MANOJ MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

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

S GANDHI JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18 S. Gandhi Jewellery Pcit-1, Private Limited, Indore C/O Adv. Hitesh Chimnani, बनाम/ Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18, South Tukoganj, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aamcs1613G Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

144B r.w.s. 147 and the same issue of cash deposit and eventual purchase- sale of jewellery was examined and accepted or addition was made in the reassessment proceedings after taking a conscious view. The sales of the assessee are subject to VAT and have not been doubted throughout. (kind attention is invited to pages

NAVIN KUMAR JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INDORE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

transferred to other parties by RTGS etc. The assessee is one of the beneficiaries of the cash deposits. The asseessee had deposited cash of Rs. 50,17,236/-in the account of society and the same was not disclosed in the return of income. Cash deposition in this case remained unexplained.The facts have been examined and found correct. 3. Therefore

NAVIN KUMAR JAIN,INDORE vs. ITO ACIT DYCIT FACELESS ASSESSMENT, INDORE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

transferred to other parties by RTGS etc. The assessee is one of the beneficiaries of the cash deposits. The asseessee had deposited cash of Rs. 50,17,236/-in the account of society and the same was not disclosed in the return of income. Cash deposition in this case remained unexplained.The facts have been examined and found correct. 3. Therefore

ALI ASGAR,RATLAM vs. CIT APPEAL, NFAC

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiali Asgar, Cit(A) बनाम/ 221/1, Badri Colony Near Vs. Narsingh Vatika, Silawato Ka Waas, Ratlam (Pan:Bhspa5967N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mohd. Kaid Kangsiwala, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

144B of the Act, the total income of the Assessee was computed & assessed at Rs. 24,06,685/-. The Income as per the return of income filed was at Rs.3,19,200/-. Addition as computed u/s 56(2)(x) was as at Rs.20,87,485/-. The aforesaid assessment order bears number:- ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1061255750(1) and that the same is dated

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

transfer, either at the time of purchase or at the time of sale of share by the appellant, treatment of LTCG as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act and confirmation thereof by Ld. CIT(A) is wholly unjustified, improper and bad in law. 06) Section 68: Issue: Burden to prove :- That the Commissioner of Income tax (A) erred

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

BIHARILAL,HOSHANGABAD vs. COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC-DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2018-19 Assessment Unit Of Income- Biharilal, Tax Department S/O Gaurishankar, 508, Ward No. 15, बनाम/ Shobhapur, Vs. Hoshangabad (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Eonpb2765E Assessee By Ms. Saniya Farhaz Memon, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2018-19, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds: Page 1 of 11 Biharilal ITA No. 278/Ind/2025 - AY 2018-19 “Ground1. Because the very initiation of proceeding us 147 and issuance of notice u/s 148 are bad in law, invalid and therefore, the assessment is liable