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

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

250/- per student = Rs.1,92,32,750/-was collected and remitted to the Dr. C.V. Raman University. Some of the AISECT Ltd ITA No.945, 946, 952 & 953/Ind/2019 centre had purchase extra copies of the prospectus and dues of the same was also remitted. 2. The aforesaid details were submitted to the AO on 30.03.2016 in which in reply

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

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

250/- per student = Rs.1,92,32,750/-was collected and remitted to the Dr. C.V. Raman University. Some of the AISECT Ltd ITA No.945, 946, 952 & 953/Ind/2019 centre had purchase extra copies of the prospectus and dues of the same was also remitted. 2. The aforesaid details were submitted to the AO on 30.03.2016 in which in reply

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

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

250/- per student = Rs.1,92,32,750/-was collected and remitted to the Dr. C.V. Raman University. Some of the AISECT Ltd ITA No.945, 946, 952 & 953/Ind/2019 centre had purchase extra copies of the prospectus and dues of the same was also remitted. 2. The aforesaid details were submitted to the AO on 30.03.2016 in which in reply

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

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

250/- per student = Rs.1,92,32,750/-was collected and remitted to the Dr. C.V. Raman University. Some of the AISECT Ltd ITA No.945, 946, 952 & 953/Ind/2019 centre had purchase extra copies of the prospectus and dues of the same was also remitted. 2. The aforesaid details were submitted to the AO on 30.03.2016 in which in reply

PRIME CONSTRUCTIONS,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2018-19

250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19 Page 1 of 7 Prime Construction A.Y. 2018-19 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That as and by way of an assessment order made u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

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

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 u/s 12AA of the Act dated

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

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 u/s 12AA of the Act dated

M/S OREF SECURITIES PRIVATE LTD. ,MANDSAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.70/Ind/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Vs. Ito, Mandsaur. M/S.Oref Securities P.Ltd. 69, Agrasen Nagar B/H. Mid India Mandsaur.

250 has been received during the year under consideration. Notices under section 133(6) dated 11.8.2015 were issued by the ld.AO to all seven companies who had applied for shares. Out of seven companies, six have replied in response to the said notices and confirmed their investment. While doing so, they have further filed certain documents in order to substantiate

INCME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SWARNA SUKH, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and \"impugned order” is upheld

250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order\". The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017.\n\n2.\nFACTUAL MATRIX\n\n2.1 That the assessee is a jeweller and deals in trading of the gold and the diamond jewellery. The assessee is a partnership firm

BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus purchase bills to various beneficiaries, which were later withdrawn in cash after charging commission. He also failed to substantiate any genuine trading activity in grains as claimed by him. 3.1. Based on this information, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act. In response, the assessee filed a return of income on 25.04.2021 declaring

BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus purchase bills to various beneficiaries, which were later withdrawn in cash after charging commission. He also failed to substantiate any genuine trading activity in grains as claimed by him. 3.1. Based on this information, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act. In response, the assessee filed a return of income on 25.04.2021 declaring

BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus purchase bills to various beneficiaries, which were later withdrawn in cash after charging commission. He also failed to substantiate any genuine trading activity in grains as claimed by him. 3.1. Based on this information, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act. In response, the assessee filed a return of income on 25.04.2021 declaring

SOM DISTILLERIES PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(3), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

section 250(2)(b) of the Act and in response to his notice, the AO failed to submit any report. Further, in absence of any specific request from the AO, the CIT(A) presumed that the AO did not want to attend the hearings. Thus, when the case involved whopping addition and the AO considered his additions on sound footing

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL , BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

section 250(2)(b) of the Act and in response to his notice, the AO failed to submit any report. Further, in absence of any specific request from the AO, the CIT(A) presumed that the AO did not want to attend the hearings. Thus, when the case involved whopping addition and the AO considered his additions on sound footing

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

250/- preparing Notified cost inflation index Amount equivalent 582 of cost index Rs.7,86,06,750/- If 785 of Cil is Rs.7,86,06,750/- Then for 100 it will be Rs.7,86,06,750x100 785 Rs. 1,00,13,598/- Fair market value of the asset as on 01.04.1981 by calculating on this method will

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

250,106 It is also sen that trial interest received of this company are to the tune of Rs. 206,67 Lacs and TDS thereon is Rs. 20.67 Lacs From the tax audit report and the annual accounts of this company it is evident that the company is engaged in the business of trading of polished diamonds, rough diamonds, gold

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

250,106 It is also sen that trial interest received of this company are to the tune of Rs. 206,67 Lacs and TDS thereon is Rs. 20.67 Lacs From the tax audit report and the annual accounts of this company it is evident that the company is engaged in the business of trading of polished diamonds, rough diamonds, gold

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

250,106 It is also sen that trial interest received of this company are to the tune of Rs. 206,67 Lacs and TDS thereon is Rs. 20.67 Lacs From the tax audit report and the annual accounts of this company it is evident that the company is engaged in the business of trading of polished diamonds, rough diamonds, gold