RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

bogus expenditure as a power and fuel expenses are all supported by undisputed facts and record of consumption of power. Even otherwise if the income from mixing work is considered as income from other sources the expenditure incurred on power and fuel for doing mixing work is allowable claim u/s 57 of the Act or at least the claim

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

bogus expenditure as a power and fuel expenses are all supported by undisputed facts and record of consumption of power. Even otherwise if the income from mixing work is considered as income from other sources the expenditure incurred on power and fuel for doing mixing work is allowable claim u/s 57 of the Act or at least the claim

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

bogus expenditure as a power and fuel expenses are all supported by undisputed facts and record of consumption of power. Even otherwise if the income from mixing work is considered as income from other sources the expenditure incurred on power and fuel for doing mixing work is allowable claim u/s 57 of the Act or at least the claim

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 263(1

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

purchase incurred by assessee during current year is on lower side as compared to preceding years and within the historical range of different years. The CIT(A) has also noted that no disallowance was made in past and subsequent assessments of assessee qua this expenditure. The CIT(A) has elaborated in his finding that the AO had no cogent basis

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

purchase incurred by assessee during current year is on lower side as compared to preceding years and within the historical range of different years. The CIT(A) has also noted that no disallowance was made in past and subsequent assessments of assessee qua this expenditure. The CIT(A) has elaborated in his finding that the AO had no cogent basis

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

vii) Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v/s International Travel House Ltd (2012) ITR 554 (Delhi) 26 ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari (viii) Income Tax Officer V/s D.G Housing Projects Ltd (2002) 343 ITR 329 Delhi (ix) M/s Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Bench Delhi) (x) M/s Narayan Tatu Rane (ITAT Mumbai Delhi) 21. Reliance is also placed

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

vii) Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v/s International Travel House Ltd (2012) ITR 554 (Delhi) 26 ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari (viii) Income Tax Officer V/s D.G Housing Projects Ltd (2002) 343 ITR 329 Delhi (ix) M/s Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Bench Delhi) (x) M/s Narayan Tatu Rane (ITAT Mumbai Delhi) 21. Reliance is also placed

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

vii) Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v/s International Travel House Ltd (2012) ITR 554 (Delhi) 26 ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari (viii) Income Tax Officer V/s D.G Housing Projects Ltd (2002) 343 ITR 329 Delhi (ix) M/s Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Bench Delhi) (x) M/s Narayan Tatu Rane (ITAT Mumbai Delhi) 21. Reliance is also placed

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

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

36. We further note that during the course of assessment proceedings detailed submissions were made to explain the genuineness of purchases and to substantiate the same has filed leger account of purchase of books corresponding to sale, bill wise details of purchase along with quantity, audited financial statements and Income Tax Return of the vendors, copy of Sales Tax orders

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

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

36. We further note that during the course of assessment proceedings detailed submissions were made to explain the genuineness of purchases and to substantiate the same has filed leger account of purchase of books corresponding to sale, bill wise details of purchase along with quantity, audited financial statements and Income Tax Return of the vendors, copy of Sales Tax orders

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

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

36. We further note that during the course of assessment proceedings detailed submissions were made to explain the genuineness of purchases and to substantiate the same has filed leger account of purchase of books corresponding to sale, bill wise details of purchase along with quantity, audited financial statements and Income Tax Return of the vendors, copy of Sales Tax orders

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

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

36. We further note that during the course of assessment proceedings detailed submissions were made to explain the genuineness of purchases and to substantiate the same has filed leger account of purchase of books corresponding to sale, bill wise details of purchase along with quantity, audited financial statements and Income Tax Return of the vendors, copy of Sales Tax orders

ACIT CENTRAL-2 INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI .GAURAV TEKRIWAL, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

vii) Ld. AR submitted that FMG is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act and the same is still existing. But the Ld. AO has not made any enquiry from FMG. (viii) Ld. AR submitted that the revenue has allowed deduction of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- in the assessment of owner, Shri Dipesh Khandelwal. As a necessary

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

vii) The Assessing Officer exercises quasi-judicial power vested in him and if he exercises such power in accordance with law and arrive at a conclusion, such conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the Commissioner of Income-tax does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. (viii) The Commissioner of Income-tax, before exercising his jurisdiction under section

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

vii) The Assessing Officer exercises quasi-judicial power vested in him and if he exercises such power in accordance with law and arrive at a conclusion, such conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the Commissioner of Income-tax does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. (viii) The Commissioner of Income-tax, before exercising his jurisdiction under section

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

vii) The Assessing Officer exercises quasi-judicial power vested in him and if he exercises such power in accordance with law and arrive at a conclusion, such conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the Commissioner of Income-tax does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. (viii) The Commissioner of Income-tax, before exercising his jurisdiction under section

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

vii) The Assessing Officer exercises quasi-judicial power vested in him and if he exercises such power in accordance with law and arrive at a conclusion, such conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the Commissioner of Income-tax does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. (viii) The Commissioner of Income-tax, before exercising his jurisdiction under section