SHRI SHALIGRAM BAROD, ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

house. Hence, the appellant is duly complied with the condition as per section 54F of the Act 3.1] That the first reason as mentioned by the Pr. CIT for issuing the notice u/s 263 to the appellant was as under:- ● That appellant has claimed that transfer of Land took place in A.Y. 2014-15 however while determining the sale consideration

SHRI LAV NARANG,UJJAIN vs. PCIT,, UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16

TDS deducted thereon claimed in the Income Tax Return the FDR’s are part of the business of Civil Construction which are utilized for providing bank guarantee and security deposit to the Government 5 Shri Lav Nagrang Department. As regards the second issue of purchase of 51 residential plots it was stated that these plots were not purchased for business

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

House, Navratan Bagh Main CGO Complex, Road, Indore Indore (M.P.) PAN No. ABHPB5246R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Advocate with Shri Gagan Tiwari, Advocate Ms. Simran Bhullar, CIT.D.R. Respondent by : 28.09.2022 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 24 .11.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee

KUSUMLATA GARG,INDORE vs. DCIT ACIT 3 (1) INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

house property to the tune of Rs.\n56,60,390/- as Gross Rent. However, on perusal of 26AS consolidated\nincome received in that category is shown as Rs.61,99,560/- and TDS

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

house property, profits & gains of business and profession, income from share in profits of firm and income from other sources. The return for the AY 2010-11 was filed by appellant on 17.03.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 4,49,440/-. On 12.07.2016, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on Jain & Dixit Group. Certain

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

House property 3,90,000 2 Income from business (being 5,71,856 proprietor of M/s Samarth Impex, Indore) 3 Income from Long Term Capital 27,50,406 Gain (Exempt U/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act 4 Interest on saving Bank Interest 8,715 5 Dividend Income 3,830 3.1] Details of all bank accounts as maintained

M/S ROCKBED RENOVATORS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirockbed Renovators Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 7-A, Panjabi Bagh Raisen Road Bhopal Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7151G Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2024

TDS wherever applicable and the extra expenditure was incurred for the year was specifically explained by the assessee giving the specific reasons of consumption of electricity in development of site in the remote rural area as well as the expenditure incurred on acquiring equipment of machinery require for carrying out construction work. All these details were available with

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

TDS wherever applicable and the extra expenditure was incurred for the year was specifically explained by the assessee giving the specific reasons of consumption of electricity in development of site in the remote rural area as well as the expenditure incurred on acquiring equipment of machinery require for carrying out construction work. All these details were available with

MAA NARMADA AGROTECH AND INFRASTURES LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1 , INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimaa Narmada Agrotech & Pcit Infrastructures Limited Indore -1 Ug-47, Trade Centre, Vs. Kanchan Bagh Main Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcm6285 P Assessee By Shri S.N. Goyal & Shri Pranay Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.07.2023

TDS wherever applicable and the extra expenditure was incurred for the year was specifically explained by the assessee giving the specific reasons of consumption of electricity in development of site in the remote rural area as well as the expenditure incurred on acquiring equipment of machinery require for carrying out construction work. All these details were available with

PRADEEP PINJANI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

house Rs.\n60,00,000/- (Proportionate exemption claim Rs 35,17,111/-) without giving\nproper opportunity for production/verification of evidences, related therewith.\n\n4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was\nnot justified to confirm the addition made by Ld. AO by ignoring the claim for\nloss from business amounting

ACIT , RATLAM vs. M/S SHIRANI AUTOMOTIVES PVT. LTD, RATLAM MP

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, M/S. Shirani Automotive Ratlam P. Ltd. बनाम/ 29, Shirani Pura, Vs. Ratlam (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aancs 1007 M Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

Housing & Development Co. [2018] 93 taxmann.com 502 held as follows: “Section 2(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deemed dividend - (Applicability of) - High Court relied upon judgment passed by Judgment of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ankitech (P.) Ltd. [2011] 11 taxmann.com 100 (Delhi) in which it was held that: (i) legal fiction created under

THED CIT ,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S DILIP BUILDCON LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

Property and Land M/s. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. ITA No.782/ind/2018 & others Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT/DCIT reported in 93 taxmann.com 296 wherein it was held that merely because, in the TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

Property and Land M/s. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. ITA No.782/ind/2018 & others Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT/DCIT reported in 93 taxmann.com 296 wherein it was held that merely because, in the TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

Property and Land M/s. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. ITA No.782/ind/2018 & others Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT/DCIT reported in 93 taxmann.com 296 wherein it was held that merely because, in the TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

Property and Land M/s. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. ITA No.782/ind/2018 & others Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT/DCIT reported in 93 taxmann.com 296 wherein it was held that merely because, in the TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract

DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

Property and Land M/s. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. ITA No.782/ind/2018 & others Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT/DCIT reported in 93 taxmann.com 296 wherein it was held that merely because, in the TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

Property and Land M/s. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. ITA No.782/ind/2018 & others Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT/DCIT reported in 93 taxmann.com 296 wherein it was held that merely because, in the TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract

SHRI DILIP BUILDCON LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

Property and Land M/s. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. ITA No.782/ind/2018 & others Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT/DCIT reported in 93 taxmann.com 296 wherein it was held that merely because, in the TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract