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

short) by Ld. Pr. CIT-I Indore order dated 29.03.2019.The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1 that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in setting aside the assessment order as passed by the ld. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act on 14.12.2016 even when

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAJEEV AJMERA, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-3(1) Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Co No.23/Ind/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.51/Ind/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Dcit-3(1) Indore Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Assessee By Shri Mahendra Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2022 आदेश/ O R D E R

short term capital gain against the sale of flat of Rs. 68,79,170/- by stating that the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose merely on affidavit filed by the assessee and ignoring the fact that the residential flat was held by the assessee as capital asset as per purchase deed & assessee is in real estate consultancy business. 3. Whether

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 (1), INDORE vs. SHRI MUKESH AGRAWAL, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2005-06

gains and addition of Rs.9,39,798/- on account of purchase of scrap. I have carefully gone through the assessment order as well as submission of the appellant is this regard. 5.1 The appellant has stated that as far as addition of Rs 8100000 was concerned, Rs 4050000 were squared up loans during the year for which copy of account

GUNVEER SINGH CHHABRA ,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -1, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

short ‘the Act’) arising out of order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer under S.143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2015-16. 2. There is a delay of 48 days in preferring instant appeal before us. The date of receipt of order passed by Learned PCIT is stated to be received on 26.03.2021 and due to Pandemic - Covid

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

short term capital gain of Rs.1,23,10,312/- has been shown. This gain has been neutralized by the b/f losses and no taxes paid has been paid. Assessee has submitted ledgers and details on 19.03.2022. The assessee has failed to substantiate the genuineness of alleged share transactions in respect of STCG. In view of above discussions, the landmark decision

SHRI LAV NARANG,UJJAIN vs. PCIT,, UJJAIN

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

gain. 3. If the registration expenses and stamp duty are paid by seller then it 4 Shri Lav Nagrang will increase the capital loss. Thus there is no loss to the revenue in such a case. 5. Apart from the above referred submissions, no other supporting evidence were filed by the assessee before the Ld. Pr. CIT. After going through

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

gain under section 10(38) of the Act can be made in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search. These submissions and case laws referred to by the assessee are reproduced by the ld.CIT(A) in his impugned order. The ld.CIT(A) after considering detailed submissions of the assessee and case laws cited

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

gain under section 10(38) of the Act can be made in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search. These submissions and case laws referred to by the assessee are reproduced by the ld.CIT(A) in his impugned order. The ld.CIT(A) after considering detailed submissions of the assessee and case laws cited

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

gain under section 10(38) of the Act can be made in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search. These submissions and case laws referred to by the assessee are reproduced by the ld.CIT(A) in his impugned order. The ld.CIT(A) after considering detailed submissions of the assessee and case laws cited

AMARJEET SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. ITO 2(1), IND, INDORE

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiamarjeet Singh Bhatia, Income Tax Officer बनाम/ House No.63 Panchwati, 2(1), Vs. Janki Nagar, Indore Indore (Pan: Cjcpb5689P) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Short term capital gain is unjustified. The Appellant prays that the order to be set aside to the CIT(A) for hearing on merits. 3. On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, learned A.O. erred in making addition of Rs.1,10,00,000/- under Section 45 of the Act. The Appellant prays that the said addition

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

short term loans granted by the assesse to the farmers for meeting out the expenditure of crop season. Therefore, the assesse has brought on record supporting evidence to show as to why there was a collection of this account at the fag end of the financial year i.e. 28th March 2016. 13. We have also gone through the relevant documentary

SAHARAYN UNIVERSAL MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

capital gain @ 10 per\ncent. The justice must not only be done but seem to have been done as observed by Lord\nHewart, C.J. in R. v. Susses Justices (1924) 1 KB 256.))\n15. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and restore the\norder of the CIT(A).\"\nPage 12 of 28\nSaharayn Universal Multipurpose

ITO-5(1), INDORE vs. SHRI R G PRAJAPATI, INDORE

Accordingly, ground no.1 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata.Y. 2011-12

TDS had been deducted by the payee companies therefore, the deduction of tax on the same amount would be result of double taxation. This view is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. vs. CIT(2007) 293 ITR 226(Hon'ble Supreme Court). Before me the revenue could

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

terms of agreement between the PWD and the assessee performance based security deposit which Page 15 of 33 ITANo.214/Ind/2023 M/s. Rockbed Renovators Ltd. were taken at the time of Bid will only be realized after five years of completion of work. As sub-contractors were part of the project and realization of performance security which depends upon quality of work

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

terms of Explanation 2 & 6 to section 9(1)(vi) and accordingly held assessee as liable for TDS u/s 194J. However, it is the submission of assessee that the impugned payment is covered by none. Therefore, the assessee has raised two separate grounds, namely Ground No. IV and Ground No. V to deal both points respectively. 8. The expression

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE CIT (TDS), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

terms of Explanation 2 & 6 to section 9(1)(vi) and accordingly held assessee as liable for TDS u/s 194J. However, it is the submission of assessee that the impugned payment is covered by none. Therefore, the assessee has raised two separate grounds, namely Ground No. IV and Ground No. V to deal both points respectively. 8. The expression

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

short) by Ld. Pr. CIT-2 Indore vied order dated 24.03.2019.The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- Shri Kailash Khandelwal “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. Pr. CIT-II, Indore erred in holding that the order passed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

terms of Explanation 2 & 6 to section 9(1)(vi) and accordingly held assessee as liable for TDS u/s 194J. However, it is the submission of assessee that the impugned payment is covered by none. Therefore, the assessee has raised two separate grounds, namely Ground No. IV and Ground No. V to deal both points respectively. 8. The expression