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

revision order dated 28.03.2023 of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal passed u/s 263 of the Act for Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. That the order of the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal u/s 263 of the Act is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 2. That the Ld. Pr. Commissioner

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE CIT- (TDS), BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Bharti Airtel Limited Cit-(Tds) बनाम Indore Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) /Vs. Pan: Bplb1146F Assessee By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14.09.2022 आदेश / / O R D E R O R D E R / / O R D E R O R D E R

TDS)-II, Indore [“Ld. AO”] u/s 201(1) / 201(1A) for Financial Year 2009-10, the assessee has filed this appeal. 2. By means of various grounds raised in Appeal Memo, which are not being narrated here for the sake of brevity, the assessee has precisely claimed that the Ld. CIT has erred in passing revision-order u/s 263

M/S. S.R. FERRO ALLOYS,JHABUA vs. THE PCIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

263 of the Act. In such matters, to remand the matter/issue to the Assessing Officer would imply and mean the CIT has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed the Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question. 17. This distinction must be kept in mind by the CIT while exercising jurisdiction under Section 263

ABHAY KUMAR JAIN,RAISEN vs. PR CIT -2 , BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of Assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Abhay Kumar Jain, Pr. Cit-2 Old Bus Stand, Begumganj बनाम/ Bhopal Raisen Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Afqpj 0679 F Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ar Revenue By None Date Of Hearing 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2022

u/s 263 which culminated into passing of revision-order dated 25.11.2019 holding that the assessment-order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue; setting aside the assessment-order and also directing the Ld. AO to make assessment afresh. Aggrieved by such revision-order, the assessee has filed present appeal and now before us. 6. Ld. AR drew

SHRI KHALID AMAN,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Khalid Aman, Pr. Cit-2 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aarpa 4443 L Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2023

263 and the assessee has also filed enough details/documents in response thereto which is very much evident from the following details/documents forming part of assessment-record available with the department; or (ii) some issues were not at all a part of the domain of Ld. AO: (i) Issue No. 1 – The assessee had purchased following properties for inadequate consideration, which

KAILASHCHANDRA KHANDELWAL,SENDHWA vs. PR. CIT -2, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Kailash Khandelwal Pr. Cit-2, Prop. M/S. Vikash Krishi Indore बनाम/ Seva Kendra, Bus Stand, Vs. Sendhwa, Barwani (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Acmpk2991E Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Vijay Bansal, Nisha Lahoti, Ars Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

TDS or depositing the tax with Government. [PB 146] 2 15 Confirmations of all Confirmations along with copy of unsecured loans ledger accounts were submitted. taken. [PB 83-116, 146] Confirmations for the large squared up loans in the specified format. [PB 142] 3 16 Details of interest Details of the interest earned earned on the loans were submitted along

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

revision order u/s 263 of the Act. The sole ground for setting aside the order passed by the AO is lack of inquiry on the part of the AO in respect of these issues. However, we find that the AO issued show cause notice u/s 142(1) and specifically asked the assessee to furnish details and evidence in respect

SMT. SHARDA,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

revised and the aforesaid land falls within 2 Kms. from the Municipal limits of Tehsil & Dist. Harda. To support our contention once again we are attaching herewith certificate Certificate in this regard issued by Office of the Municipal Corporation, Harda as Annexure –1 which has already been furnished in response to reply to notice issued u/s 142(1) wherein

SHRI PREMNARAYAN,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

revised and the aforesaid land falls within 2 Kms. from the Municipal limits of Tehsil & Dist. Harda. To support our contention once again we are attaching herewith certificate Certificate in this regard issued by Office of the Municipal Corporation, Harda as Annexure –1 which has already been furnished in response to reply to notice issued u/s 142(1) wherein

SHRI JANKILAL,UJJAIN vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jankilal Pr.Cit-1 बनाम/ 12, Chimanganj Mandi Indore Agar Road, Ujjain Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aczpj 2632 A Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

u/s 263 of the act. 5. By the aforesaid show-cause notice, the assessee was asked to explain as to why the assessment-order may not be revised. In response thereto, the assessee made a detailed submission to Ld. PCIT which is re-produced in Para No. 3 of the revision-order. 6. However, none of those submissions impressed

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

TDS at the time of Registry in the name of M/s Daksha Homes P. Ltd only. The same is claimed by M/s Daksha Homes P. Ltd in its Income Tax Return. Thus, on the excess amount of Rs. 32,55,000/- [ Rs. 1,30,20,000 - Rs. 97,65,000] , M/s Daksha Homes P. Ltd was liable to pay Income

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

revising the order of the AO ought to have given conclusive finding as to why acceptance of the claim by the AO is not in accordance with the evidence or contrary to the law. There is no quarrel on the point that the lack of inquiry on the part of the AO would render the order

M/S. ABHINAV ENTERPRISES,INDORE vs. PCIT-2, INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Abhinav Enterprises, Pr. Commissioner Of 85, Income-Tax-2, Ramchandra Nagar Extn., Indore. बनाम/ Aerodrum Road, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan : Aanfa6300Q Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2024

263 has been amended and Explanation 2 had been introduced therein, the assessment-order is deemed to be erroneous-cum-prejudicial to the interest of revenue if the same had been passed without inquiries or verification which should have been made. 9. Aggrieved by such revision-order, the assessee has come in this appeal before us. Page

SHRI JODHA SINGH ATWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of Assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Jodha Singh Atwal Pr. Cit-1, Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aenpa4904L Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By None Date Of Hearing 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2022

TDS etc. properly and thereafter, passed the order with due diligence. Thus in these circumstances action u/s 263 is not justified.” 2. This appeal is required to be argued by CIT-DR from revenue side, but when the matter was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of revenue. It is observed that the revenue has been seeking regular adjournments

S.R.DIGITAL AND BROADBAND PVT.LTD. ,INDORE vs. PCIT(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 S.R. Digital Tv & Pcit, Broadband Private Indore बनाम/ Limited, 335 Orbit Mall, A. B.Road, Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aavcs1165L Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, C.A. Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

TDS. Therefore, the issue of carry forward of losses was beyond the scope of scrutiny conducted by AO. Ld. AR submitted that this is a settled view taken by Indore Bench of ITAT in numerous orders that any issue which is not a part of limited scrutiny cannot form part of revision u/s 263

SHRI LAV NARANG,UJJAIN vs. PCIT,, UJJAIN

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

revised u/s 263. However, before I proceed to invoke the powers u/s 263 and pass an appropriate order, I deem it proper to give you’re an opportunity of being heard in the matter. 4. In compliance to the above show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act assessee filed following written submissions through email on 12.03.2020: 1. The assessee

M/S J.C.SHARMA & SONS,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani

revision mentioned by Ld. PCIT in the order u/s 263 is reproduced below: “2. Perusal of the order u/s 143(3) dated 15.12.2018 and related records, reveals that the assessee has debited an amount of Rs. 2,01,061/- in profit and loss account on account of “interest on taxes” (not specific for interest on which tax). This expenditure

DR DESHMUKH MOTHER AND CHILD CARE ,UJJAIN vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Dr. Deshmukh Mother & Pr. Cit-I, Child Care, Indore बनाम/ 27, Nirman Nagar, Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aahfd3407H Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Negi, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2023

263 is valid in the eyes of law? Page 5 of 13 Dr. Deshmukh Mother & Child Care Assessment year 2017-18 10. Ld. Representatives of both sides made a lengthy discussion on various issues one by one. We sum up the arguments and contentions of both sides as also our analysis issue-wise as under: (i) Regarding issue raised