ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

purchased by paper entities could also not be sustained. 6.3 So far as the observations of Ld. AO as to financial and profitability of SMIL is concerned, we find that the sales transactions have taken place in online mechanism through recognized stock exchange wherein the identity of the buyer would not be known and there would be no privity

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

purchased by paper entities could also not be sustained. 6.3 So far as the observations of Ld. AO as to financial and profitability of SMIL is concerned, we find that the sales transactions have taken place in online mechanism through recognized stock exchange wherein the identity of the buyer would not be known and there would be no privity

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

purchased by paper entities could also not be sustained. 6.3 So far as the observations of Ld. AO as to financial and profitability of SMIL is concerned, we find that the sales transactions have taken place in online mechanism through recognized stock exchange wherein the identity of the buyer would not be known and there would be no privity

DECENT INDUSTRIES P. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Decent Industries Ito-1(2), Private Ltd, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Corporate Park, बनाम/ Db City Area Hills, Vs. Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeca6271G Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta & Shri N.K. Gupta Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

14A. The addition may please be deleted.” Ground No. 1: 4. This is a legal ground in which the assessee has challenged the re- opening of assessment u/s 148 and prayed for annulling the assessment made by AO. 5. Ld. AR for assessee has filed a Written-Synopsis and advanced the same submission as mentioned therein before us during hearing

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

purchased by you 37. The assessee duly replied to the above show cause notice dated 16.3.15 giving complete details about the information called for in the show cause notice and the same is extracted below:- With reference to above, and further to our hearing held on 09/03/2015 we are submitting the following pending documents for your kind perusal:- 1. Credit

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

purchased by you 37. The assessee duly replied to the above show cause notice dated 16.3.15 giving complete details about the information called for in the show cause notice and the same is extracted below:- With reference to above, and further to our hearing held on 09/03/2015 we are submitting the following pending documents for your kind perusal:- 1. Credit

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

purchased by you 37. The assessee duly replied to the above show cause notice dated 16.3.15 giving complete details about the information called for in the show cause notice and the same is extracted below:- With reference to above, and further to our hearing held on 09/03/2015 we are submitting the following pending documents for your kind perusal:- 1. Credit

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

bogus or not genuine. In support of his contention he has relied upon following decisions: 1.Bengal Peerless Housing Devat. Co. Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Income (Circle -7) (1), Kolkata (2019) 103 Taxmann 298 (Kolkata Trib) 2.Bharat Earth Movers v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2000) 112 Taxmann 61 (SC) 3. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alembic Glass Industries (Tax Appeal

ACIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LTD., BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Som Distilleries & Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Breweries Limited, 1(1), Vs. Som House, Bhopal. 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay:2014-15 Acit (Central)-1, Som Distilleries & बनाम/ Bhopal Breweries Limited, Vs. Som House, 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

14A and made disallowance of Rs. 7,02,964/- consisting of two elements in terms of Rule 8D, viz. (i) Interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) computed at Rs. 75,807/- and (ii) standard disallowance @ 0.50% of the average investments of Rs. 12,54,41,410/- made in the shares yielding the exempted dividend, computed

SOM DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Som Distilleries & Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Breweries Limited, 1(1), Vs. Som House, Bhopal. 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay:2014-15 Acit (Central)-1, Som Distilleries & बनाम/ Bhopal Breweries Limited, Vs. Som House, 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

14A and made disallowance of Rs. 7,02,964/- consisting of two elements in terms of Rule 8D, viz. (i) Interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) computed at Rs. 75,807/- and (ii) standard disallowance @ 0.50% of the average investments of Rs. 12,54,41,410/- made in the shares yielding the exempted dividend, computed

M/S AGARWAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,BHOPAL vs. DYPTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus payments to sub-contractors are involved in the present groups appeals. Therefore, we decide both the issues as under: Issue No.1 – Deduction u/s 80IB(10) 5. Facts of this issue as culled out from the orders of the Revenue Authorities are that return of income for assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09 after claiming deduction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S AGRAWAL CONSTRUCTION CO., BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus payments to sub-contractors are involved in the present groups appeals. Therefore, we decide both the issues as under: Issue No.1 – Deduction u/s 80IB(10) 5. Facts of this issue as culled out from the orders of the Revenue Authorities are that return of income for assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09 after claiming deduction

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rule. 5. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:- IT(SS)A 90/ Ind/ 2019 A.Y. 2013-14 1. The order passed u/s. 153A/ 143(3) by lower authorities is illegal, invalid, and untenable in law. The same be kindly cancelled 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rule. 5. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:- IT(SS)A 90/ Ind/ 2019 A.Y. 2013-14 1. The order passed u/s. 153A/ 143(3) by lower authorities is illegal, invalid, and untenable in law. The same be kindly cancelled 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

RITU MITTAL,BURHANPUR vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

In the result, all grounds raised by the assessee(s) are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2015-16

Section 68 of the Act directed to be rejected. 5.The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter and/or amend all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. 3. From perusal of the above grounds we find that the common issues have been raised firstly relates to genuineness of Long Term Capital Gain(in short LTCG), claimed exempt

NEELAM MITTAL,BURHANPUR vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

In the result, all grounds raised by the assessee(s) are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2015-16

Section 68 of the Act directed to be rejected. 5.The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter and/or amend all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. 3. From perusal of the above grounds we find that the common issues have been raised firstly relates to genuineness of Long Term Capital Gain(in short LTCG), claimed exempt

M/S MOIRA STEEL LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2007-08 M/S. Moira Steel Ltd, Dcit-1(1), 103, Laxmi Tower, Vs. Indore 576, M.G. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Aabcm2051K Revenue By Shri K.G. Goel, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri V.P. Rawka, Ca Date Of Hearing 10.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 14.05.2019 O R D E R

14A was deleted whereas addition made u/s 68 of the Act for unexplained share application money at Rs.50,00,000/- confirmed. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising sole issue of addition of Rs.50,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act for unexplained share application money received from two companies. 5. Ld. Counsel

ITO 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S AMKAY COLONISERS & BUILDERS P LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ito 1(1) M/S. Amkay Colonisers & Bhopal Builders Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 16, Amar Stambh, Z-1, M.P. Nagar Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue ) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaeca 6272 F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.12.2022

14A read with Rule 8D on account of expenses incurred for earning exempted income. 4. During assessment-proceeding, the Ld. AO found that the assessee has derived revenue from agricultural-activity (exempted segment) as well as non-agricultural activity (taxable segment) and prepared separate P&L A/c of two segments but debited Sundry Office Expenses of Rs. 23,834/-, Directors