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

111 of the paper book filed before the Hon’ble Bench 4.3] That appellant has prepared the said FDR’s under the Capital Gain Deposit Scheme totaling to Rs. 4613000/- on 29.11.2014 which is before the due date of filing of Return for A.Y. 2014-15 on 30.11.2014. 4.4] That against the said amount, the Bank also opened a Saving

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

Gains was arranged for beneficiaries. The SEBI had also suspended operations of trading of M/s Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Ltd. holding the same to be a penny stock in which manipulations were carried out. 4.3 In view of the above stated details and facts. the appellant during the assessment proceedings as well as appeal proceedings was required to explain

THE ITO-2(2), INDORE vs. SMT. MOHAN BAI POKHRANA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.468/Ind/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2009-10

capital gains scheme. The amount in specified Bonds was actually made on 31-03-2009 i.e. within financial year only. The appellant relying on the decision in the case of Lalit Marda 23 SOT 250 (Kol-Trib) and Muneer Khan 41 SOT 504 (Hyd) submitted that for the claiming exemption under section 54EC the same fund is not required

SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN CHUORSIYA,RAJGARH vs. THE PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Krishna Mohan Pr. Cit Choursiya(Prop. Of M/S Laxmi Ujjain Mp बनाम/ Auto Parts) Vs. Ward No.14, Bus Stand, Kurawar Rajgarh(M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aempc3634G

111 ITR 312 (Gujarat) 16 Corporation 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through submissions made by both the sides and the decisions referred and relied by both the parties. Through this appeal assessee has challenged the action of Ld. Pr. CIT invoking the provisions Krishna Mohan Choursiya of section

AMBESH SHRIVASTAV,INDORE vs. ITO-1(4), INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

111, Scheme No.74C, Vijay Indore Nagar, Indore, Madhya Pradesh - 452010 PAN No.AHCPS4715P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R. Respondent by : Date of Hearing 20.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 21.09.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.02.2019 passed by the Commissioner

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

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

M/S B S S ENTERPRISES,BHOPAL vs. ITO-4(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. B.S.S. Enterprises, Ito, 4B, Civil Lines, 4(1), बनाम/ Professor Colony, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aajfb6320 P Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, C.A. & Shri N.D. Patwa, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.10.2023

111 taxman.com 94 (Bom HC), Ld. AR submitted that the provision of section 43CA is applicable prospectively from AY 2014-15 and cannot apply to AY 2013-14. 6. With regard to another section 50C, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was engaged in the business of trading of land/plot which is a fact noted by AO himself. Therefore

RAJESH BIRTHARE,INDORE vs. ITO 3(2), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoand**

capital gains on transfer of the said both parcels of agriculture land sold for Rs. 1,63,58,000/- and Rs. 2,32,60,000/- and the entire sale proceed has also been added as her income vide order u/s 144/147 Dt. 15.11.2019. However the entire income of all the three sellers has been assessed as income of the Appellant

ASIAN BUSINESS CONECTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT - 1(1) , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2015-16 M/S. Asian Business Dcit-1(1), Connections Private Ltd, Vs. Bhopal Fm-18, Man Sarovar Complex, 7No. Stop, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaica1206D

capital but it extends to the entire 43 Asian Business Connection Private Limited accumulated profits. 'Accumulated profits' means profits in a commercial sense. The expression includes tax-free profits like agricultural Income, general reserve, development rebate reserve, credit balance and initial depreciation but not normal depreciation nor provision for taxation and dividends. 25. On a bare perusal of section

SHRI KULWANT SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-3, INDORE

In the result, all the ix appeals as mentioned above are

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ /. सं . अ .

111(Karn)[2012] 82 CCH 282 Kar HC, wherein, it was observed in para 59 as under: “the practice of the Department sending a printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law when the consequences of the assessee not rebutting the initiated presumption is serious in nature

JCIT OSD (CENTRAL)-1, RATLAM vs. SHRI KANTILAL KATARIA, RATLAM

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

111, the date has been mentioned as ‘1.04’ i.e. 1st April. It is submitted that the first date falls in the financial year 2010-11 whereas the second date falls in the financial year 2011-12. 2 Entire suppressed sales cannot be 115 to 117 CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar regarded as income. [Copy

ACIT (CENTRAL) 1 INDORE , INDORE vs. SHRI KANTILAL KATARIA, RATLAM

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

111, the date has been mentioned as ‘1.04’ i.e. 1st April. It is submitted that the first date falls in the financial year 2010-11 whereas the second date falls in the financial year 2011-12. 2 Entire suppressed sales cannot be 115 to 117 CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar regarded as income. [Copy

M/S. SANEE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT , BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Sanee Infrastructure Pr.Cit-2, Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Bhopal D-1, Machna Colony, 6 No Bus Stop, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aagcs8307M Appellant By Shri Arun Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit Date Of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01.06.2020 O R D E R

gains strength and support by the ratio of the decisions in the case laws mentioned here below: 1.Ram Pyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that assessment made in undue haste and without making inquiries which are called for the circumstances of the case is erroneous and prejudicial

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

section 32(1) by making a sufficient note in assessment-order. Consequently, we uphold AO’s action. The assessee fails in this ground. Ground No. 23: 32. This ground relates to the cost of Rs. 73,10,920/- incurred by assessee towards licensed software treated by AO as capital expenditure. 33. The assessee has incurred cost towards purchase of licensed

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

111 (URO) wherein it has been held that where contracts involve development, operating, maintenance, financial involvement and defect correction and liability period, then such contracts cannot be called as simple works contracts so as to deny deduction under section 80-IA(4) to assessee. Such contracts are eligible for deduction under section 80-IA and same is applicable in case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

111 (URO) wherein it has been held that where contracts involve development, operating, maintenance, financial involvement and defect correction and liability period, then such contracts cannot be called as simple works contracts so as to deny deduction under section 80-IA(4) to assessee. Such contracts are eligible for deduction under section 80-IA and same is applicable in case