THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS on several other payments made during the year and consequently, no disallowance was called for under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 9.1 We further find that the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of the assessee itself for the A.Y. 2009-10 vide order dated 10.11.2014 approved the net profit rate of 5% in the business carried

M/S. SANWARIA AGROILS LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

147(a). 13. In the case of Kalaynji Mabji & Cop. V. CIT 9(1097) 102 ITR 287 (SC) it was held that reassessment can be initiated even if information may be obtained from record of original assessment. 14. The learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that assessment was reopened on the basis of audit objection, which is not permissible

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS & TOLL HIGHWAYS (INDIA) LTD., MHOW

In the result, assessee’s ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Prakash Asphaltings & Toll Acit (Central)-1 Of Highway (India) Ltd., Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, Central-1, Prakash Asphaltings & Indore Toll Of Highway (India) बनाम/ Ltd., 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee)

section 271E is applicable qua the assessee. 11. Based on above pleading made by assessee, the Ld. Addl. CIT sought a factual-report from Ld. AO on the nature of transaction, whereupon the Ld. AO submitted factual-report dated 28.09.2016 as mentioned in Para No. 5 / Page No. 7 of the penalty-order. The contents of factual-report are also

M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOO HIGHWAY LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Prakash Asphaltings & Toll Acit (Central)-1 Of Highway (India) Ltd., Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, Central-1, Prakash Asphaltings & Indore Toll Of Highway (India) बनाम/ Ltd., 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee)

section 271E is applicable qua the assessee. 11. Based on above pleading made by assessee, the Ld. Addl. CIT sought a factual-report from Ld. AO on the nature of transaction, whereupon the Ld. AO submitted factual-report dated 28.09.2016 as mentioned in Para No. 5 / Page No. 7 of the penalty-order. The contents of factual-report are also

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AVILABLE FINANCE LTD., INDORE

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

147 R.W.S 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by its jurisdictional AO assessing the income at Rs. 18,42,160/- and Rs. 8,86,387/- respectively, which fact also reaffirms the creditworthiness of this company, 7.8 It is further seen that Mr. Deepak Kalani, director of both the 38 Agrawal Transport Corporation

M/S AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD.,INDORE vs. THEDCIT 1(1) , INDORE, INDORE

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

147 R.W.S 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by its jurisdictional AO assessing the income at Rs. 18,42,160/- and Rs. 8,86,387/- respectively, which fact also reaffirms the creditworthiness of this company, 7.8 It is further seen that Mr. Deepak Kalani, director of both the 38 Agrawal Transport Corporation

DY. CIT -1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE

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

147 R.W.S 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by its jurisdictional AO assessing the income at Rs. 18,42,160/- and Rs. 8,86,387/- respectively, which fact also reaffirms the creditworthiness of this company, 7.8 It is further seen that Mr. Deepak Kalani, director of both the 38 Agrawal Transport Corporation

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

147 within a period of 10 days from the date of disposing of the objections of the assessee against the notice u/ 148 which is contrary to the procedure to be followed by the AO as directed by the Hon’ble High Court and consequently the impugned order is liable to be set aside. We order accordingly. ITANo.794/Ind/2018

PRAMOD PALIWAL,KHANWA vs. ACIT KHANWA, KHANWA

In the result Ground No. 1 (a) &

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10 Shri Pramod Paliwal, Acit, Prop. M/S. Pragati Vs. Khandwa Construction, Ramkishanganj, Khandwa (M.P) (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Adapp8012A Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, Cas Date Of Hearing 10.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 17.10.2019 O R D E R

147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the written submissions submitted that the assessee’s case has been re-opened after 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. There was no failure on the part of the assessee to furnish the details and no material evidence has been brought

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

147. Hence the Issue No. 2 was completely out of the domain of the re-assessment proceeding conducted by Ld. AO. Therefore, based on judicial rulings in Royal Western India Turf Club Vs. PCIT ITA No. 640/Mum/2021 dated 12.10.2021; The Tata Power Company Limited Vs. PCIT Mumbai, ITA No. 1307/Mum/2020 dated 29.07.2021; Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. Vs. ACIT Write Petition

M/S TESLA TRANSFORMERS ,BHOPAL vs. ITO(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, BHOPAL

In the result, Ground Numbers 1 to 4 of assessee’s appeal are dismissed

section 9(1)(i) of the Act for reference: Income deemed to accrue or arise in India. 9. (1) The following incomes shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India :— I.T.A No. 100/Ind/2018 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 13 Tesla Transformers Ltd. vs. ITO (International Taxation) (i) all income accruing or arising, whether directly or indirectly, through or from

RAJ KUMAR PALIA,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - ITARSI, CAMP AT BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2009-10 Raj Kumar Paliya Dcit/Acit M/S. Da Construction

147 r.w.s. 144 wherein he made a disallowance of Rs. 8,60,865/- (+) Rs. 9,47,558/-, aggregating to Rs. 18,08,423/- and thereby re-assessed total income at Rs. 43,93,263/-. Page 2 of 11 Raj Kumar Palia ITA No. 453/Ind/2025 – AY 2009-10 2.2 Aggrieved by order of re-assessment so made, the assessee carried matter

HARLEEN KAUR BHATIA,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

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

147 or 148(2) of the Act. ii. He/She may consider any order passed by the Assessing Officer as erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. This is exercised by calling for and examining the record available at this stage. iii. If after calling for and examining the records the Commissioner considers that the order

GURVINDER KAUR BHATIA ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

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

147 or 148(2) of the Act. ii. He/She may consider any order passed by the Assessing Officer as erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. This is exercised by calling for and examining the record available at this stage. iii. If after calling for and examining the records the Commissioner considers that the order

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, has contended that this issue was not forming part of the ‘reasons to believe' as recorded by the AO for initiating these reopening proceedings, further this issue was categorically examined during the regular assessment proceedings and in fact part of the losses amounting to Rs. 5,44,57,527/-was also disallowed

THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, has contended that this issue was not forming part of the ‘reasons to believe' as recorded by the AO for initiating these reopening proceedings, further this issue was categorically examined during the regular assessment proceedings and in fact part of the losses amounting to Rs. 5,44,57,527/-was also disallowed

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, has contended that this issue was not forming part of the ‘reasons to believe' as recorded by the AO for initiating these reopening proceedings, further this issue was categorically examined during the regular assessment proceedings and in fact part of the losses amounting to Rs. 5,44,57,527/-was also disallowed

GLOBUS HOUSING,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

section 147 of the Act, but he has merely acted upon the report of the investigation Wing that too has not been confronted/provided to the appellant despite several written requests. Accordingly, the Appellant prays that the order be held as invalid, bad in law and as such, directed to be quashed. 3.On the facts and circumstances of the case