THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. 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

JAGDISH SOLANKI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER JHABUA, JHABUA

Appeal is dismissed

section 147 (Point No. 5 to 7).\n12. Ld. DR thereafter invited our attention to the return of income claimed to have been filed by assessee on 25.03.2022 at the feg end of assessment- proceeding, copy at Page No. 1 of Paper-Book; the same is also scanned and re-produced for an immediate reference:\nPage 11 of 23\nITA

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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. PURUSHOTTAM GUPTA, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed and\n\"impugned order” is set aside

TDS amount is deducted business model cannot be faulted\nwith, or doubted and controverted. Since assessee's turnover is\nless there is no service tax liability for rendering commission\nagent/agency services. That the assessee has received\n\"commission” as “commission agent” from these two entities\ni.e M/s Tarun Trading Co & M/s Alka Gupta Sales only. Further\nin order to carry

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 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

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

SHRI MANISH CHOUDHARY,INDORE vs. I.T.O. WARD 5(4), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoshri Manish Choudhary, Ito-Ward 5(4) 393, Goyal Vihar, Near Khajrana Indore Vs. Temple, Ring Road Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aelpc3990C Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & Sn Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2024

TDS which has been duly deducted and paid by the employer as reflecting in form No. 16 as well as in form no. 26AS of the assessee amounting to Rs. 73,212/- while making the subject additions.” 2. At the time of hearing Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that while passing ex-parte order u/s 144 r.w. section

CHANDRA KATARIA,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(3), BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

147 through notice dated 27.03.2017 u/s 148. Finally, the AO completed re-opened assessment vide order dated 26.12.2017 after making an addition of 'notional interest income' of Rs.12,87,000/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal. The CIT(A) passed order dated 14.06.2024 ex-parte to assessee wherein he upheld the addition made by AO. Now, the assessee

PRAFULL KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA CONSTRUCTION,SHAJAPUR vs. I.T.O., SHAJAPUR

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Praffull Kumar Ito, Vijayvergiya Construction, Shajapur 1,Shujalpur Mandi, बनाम/ M.G.Road, Vs. Shajapur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aakfp2575P Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2024

147 read with section 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2011-12, the assessee has filed this appeal. 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the AO, on receipt of certain information revealing that the assessee was having contract receipts as well as TDS

AJIT KUMAR JAIN,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2006-07

TDS survey, it is clear that Peoples group has given admission to the medical students only after taking donation in cash from the parents/guardians of the students. 7. Further from copy of the statement of assessee’s wife Smt. Raj Jain available at page no.13 to 16 of assessee’s paper book, we further note that the ld. AO raised

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

section wise details deducted in the specified with nature of format. b. payment of TDS Copy of TDS returns. Shri Kailash Khandelwal c. done in the specific Challans for the payment format. [PB 142] of TDS. d. No default in either deducting the TDS or depositing the tax with Government. [PB 146] 2 15 Confirmations of all Confirmations along with