M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

15. Apropos to Ground no.1, 2 & 6 assessee has challenged the cancellation of registration u/s 12AA of the Act retrospectively w.e.f. 01.04.2008 by invoking provisions of section 12AA(3) & 12AA(4) of the Act. We observe that the assessee society is registered under M.P. Society Registration Act 1973 and enjoying the benefit of section 12AA of the Act vide order

MAHENDRA SINGH CHAWLA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

15 of 21 ITANo.245/Ind/2024 Mahendra Singh Chawla (3) Copy of Purchase deed of the House which has been sold by him during the year under construction. (4) Copy of improvement expenses incurred by the appellant during the F.Y. 2009-10 (5) Copy of allotment letter for purchasing new residential property. (6) Copy of Possession letter for obtaining possession

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

bogus nature of the subject transactions. This, under such circumstances the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) cannot be said as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thus, needs to be quashed. M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. Without prejudice further, to the above it is submitted that the recourse to section

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

15. Before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee submitted that there was three items mainly development expenses, work in progress and operating and other expenses incurred by the assessee out of which development expenses and garden development expenses were forming part of work in progress and were not claimed as deduction out of the income of the current year

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

15. Before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee submitted that there was three items mainly development expenses, work in progress and operating and other expenses incurred by the assessee out of which development expenses and garden development expenses were forming part of work in progress and were not claimed as deduction out of the income of the current year

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

15. Before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee submitted that there was three items mainly development expenses, work in progress and operating and other expenses incurred by the assessee out of which development expenses and garden development expenses were forming part of work in progress and were not claimed as deduction out of the income of the current year

SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN CHOURSIYA, RAJGARH vs. ITO, RAJGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal i

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 2(47) of the Act at the time of demolition of part of the house of the assessee and accordingly, no capital gain is taxable in the hands of the assessee in respect of demolition of part of his house. So far as the compulsory acquisition of plot area of 250 Sq Fts is concerned, we find that

SHRI ADITYA MUNDRA,DEWAS vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

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

15. We observe that there was an amendment in Section 263 of the Act by Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015 inserting explanation 2 Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 to sub section 1 of Section 263 of the Act wherein it is mentioned that order of the A.O shall be deemed to be erroneous

M/S. CHARITRA GOLD PVT. LTD.,RATLAM vs. THE PR. CIT, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

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

15. We observe that there was an amendment in Section 263 of the Act by Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015 inserting explanation 2 Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 to sub section 1 of Section 263 of the Act wherein it is mentioned that order of the A.O shall be deemed to be erroneous

SHRI MANOJ MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

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

15. We observe that there was an amendment in Section 263 of the Act by Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015 inserting explanation 2 Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 to sub section 1 of Section 263 of the Act wherein it is mentioned that order of the A.O shall be deemed to be erroneous

SHRI MANISH MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

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

15. We observe that there was an amendment in Section 263 of the Act by Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015 inserting explanation 2 Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 to sub section 1 of Section 263 of the Act wherein it is mentioned that order of the A.O shall be deemed to be erroneous

SHRI GOVIND DAS MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

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

15. We observe that there was an amendment in Section 263 of the Act by Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015 inserting explanation 2 Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 to sub section 1 of Section 263 of the Act wherein it is mentioned that order of the A.O shall be deemed to be erroneous

DHIRENDRA INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,NEEMUCH vs. PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

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

15. We observe that there was an amendment in Section 263 of the Act by Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015 inserting explanation 2 Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 to sub section 1 of Section 263 of the Act wherein it is mentioned that order of the A.O shall be deemed to be erroneous

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

bogus donations in their names to channelize its unaccounted money -. ' The assessee in response to the specific show cause in this regard has argued that the, statements have been recorded behind the assessee and no cross enquiry was given to the assessee. Such submissions have been duly considered but not found acceptable. The assessee despite repeated requested failed to furnish

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

bogus donations in their names to channelize its unaccounted money -. ' The assessee in response to the specific show cause in this regard has argued that the, statements have been recorded behind the assessee and no cross enquiry was given to the assessee. Such submissions have been duly considered but not found acceptable. The assessee despite repeated requested failed to furnish

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

bogus. of books. 2 No justification is given as The assessee is supplying books to the to why payments are made students of the Universities managed by to AISECT Bhopal for the societies under same management. supply of books who are These societies, with an object to themselves concentrate their focus on the core activity of providing education have

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

bogus. of books. 2 No justification is given as The assessee is supplying books to the to why payments are made students of the Universities managed by to AISECT Bhopal for the societies under same management. supply of books who are These societies, with an object to themselves concentrate their focus on the core activity of providing education have

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

bogus. of books. 2 No justification is given as The assessee is supplying books to the to why payments are made students of the Universities managed by to AISECT Bhopal for the societies under same management. supply of books who are These societies, with an object to themselves concentrate their focus on the core activity of providing education have