THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold and silver

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold and silver

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold and silver

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

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

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(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

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

CHARCHIT GARG,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS, advance tax and self- assessment tax. 4. The return of income was processed by the CPC under section 143(1) of the Act on 31.07.2024. While processing the return, the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80JJAA of the Act on the ground that the assessee had not furnished the prescribed audit report in Form No. 10DA

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

184 (Delhi), it held that once inquiry was made, a mere non discussion or non- mention thereof in assessment order cannot lead to assumption that Assessing Officer did not apply his mind or that he has not made inquiry on the subject and this would not justify interference by Commissioner by issuing notice under Section

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

5,01,400 8,00,000 accepted 4 Agricultural income NIL 8,14,000 NIL 1,00,000 not accepted 29. On consideration of above facts, it is clear that non-acceptance of agricultural income of Rs. 8,14,000/- shown by the assessee in his income-tax return was unjustified more so when agricultural income was shown

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

184/- as per the chart.” 9. The ld. Departmental Representative has relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 10. We have considered the facts and materials available on record. We find that the additional evidences filed by the assessee were sent to the AO by the ld. CIT(A). However, the AO without examining the facts of the case

ANUJ CHOUDHARY,BHOPAL vs. IT0,1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshianuj Choudhary, Income Tax Officer 1(1), Mig 184, Bhopal Geetanjali Complex, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aqepc6217D Assessee By Shri Balaji.V, Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit-Dr With Shri Nihar Sahu Date Of Hearing 22.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.10.2025 O R D E R

184, Bhopal Geetanjali Complex, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AQEPC6217D Assessee by Shri Balaji.V, AR Revenue by Ms. Ila Parmar, CIT-DR with Shri Nihar Sahu Date of Hearing 22.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 23.10.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad, A.M.: This appeal by the assesse is directed against the order dated

THE CIT-I, INDORE vs. M/S MAN DEVELOPMENTS, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit-Central-2 M/S Man Development, Indore 304, Vishal Astra, बनाम/ Vijay Nagar Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aakfm 2713 N Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Assessee By Shri S.C. Padliya, Ar Date Of Hearing 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.05.2023

TDS out of interest and closing balance. Replying upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. N. Tarika Properties Investment (2014) 387 (SC) and PCIT Vs. NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019), the AO held that supply of PAN data cannot be treated as sufficient disclosure. The AO also relied upon some more decisions as mentioned

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

5 of 15 Globus Housing ITA. No.872/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2014-15 accounts from M/s. Jay Jyoti India Pvt. Ltd. which was a paper concern floated by the Shri Sharad Darak. The reason for escapement of Income mentioned name of main person i.e. Shri Shrad Darak, who is the main person behind this entire façade, hence assessee firm objections that