RADHESHYAM KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ACIT4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

115 taxmann.com 167 (Delhi-Trib) where the scrips of this particular 12 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 M/s. Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. was the actual subject matter. The relevant portion thereof is as follows:- 4. The brief facts are that the assessee filed her return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 31.07.2014 declaring total

SMT. SANDHYA KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

115 taxmann.com 167 (Delhi-Trib) where the scrips of this particular 12 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 M/s. Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. was the actual subject matter. The relevant portion thereof is as follows:- 4. The brief facts are that the assessee filed her return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 31.07.2014 declaring total

SHRI SURESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

115 taxmann.com 167 (Delhi-Trib) where the scrips of this particular 12 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 M/s. Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. was the actual subject matter. The relevant portion thereof is as follows:- 4. The brief facts are that the assessee filed her return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 31.07.2014 declaring total

SMT. RUKMANI KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

115 taxmann.com 167 (Delhi-Trib) where the scrips of this particular 12 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 M/s. Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. was the actual subject matter. The relevant portion thereof is as follows:- 4. The brief facts are that the assessee filed her return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 31.07.2014 declaring total

MOHANLAL KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

115 taxmann.com 167 (Delhi-Trib) where the scrips of this particular 12 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 M/s. Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. was the actual subject matter. The relevant portion thereof is as follows:- 4. The brief facts are that the assessee filed her return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 31.07.2014 declaring total

SHRI LEELAHAR PALASIYAWALA,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(4), INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Leeladhar Palasiyawala, Pr.Cit-1, Village Kalariya, Post Indore बनाम/ Kalariya, Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Bqdppo511K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca & Shri N. D. Patwa, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023

115 days had occurred due to mis-understanding of law by counsel whereby he filed appeal against consequential assessment-order instead of impugned order. With this submission, Ld. AR prayed that the entire delay of 490 days is duly explained, the same is not because of any lethargy, negligence or mala fide intention of assessee and the assessee does

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

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

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

gains from incidental business [Section (4A)]: Where a trust or an institution is also carrying on any business activity, the provisions of Section 11)1), (2), (3) and (3A) regarding exemption etc. shall not apply in respect of income earned from such business activity. However, if such business is incidental to the attainment of the objects of the trust/institution

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

gains from incidental business [Section (4A)]: Where a trust or an institution is also carrying on any business activity, the provisions of Section 11)1), (2), (3) and (3A) regarding exemption etc. shall not apply in respect of income earned from such business activity. However, if such business is incidental to the attainment of the objects of the trust/institution

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

gains to related persons, stipulations of time limits for use of funds, which are effective checks and curtail and deny benefit in cases of abuse. There is no such allegation or contention of the Revenue in the present case. 27. As observed above, fee charged and quantum of income earned can be indicative of the fact that the person

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

gains to related persons, stipulations of time limits for use of funds, which are effective checks and curtail and deny benefit in cases of abuse. There is no such allegation or contention of the Revenue in the present case. 27. As observed above, fee charged and quantum of income earned can be indicative of the fact that the person

M/S M.P. MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

gains to related persons, stipulations of time limits for use of funds, which are effective checks and curtail and deny benefit in cases of abuse. There is no such allegation or contention of the Revenue in the present case. 27. As observed above, fee charged and quantum of income earned can be indicative of the fact that the person

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

gains to related persons, stipulations of time limits for use of funds, which are effective checks and curtail and deny benefit in cases of abuse. There is no such allegation or contention of the Revenue in the present case. 27. As observed above, fee charged and quantum of income earned can be indicative of the fact that the person

THEDCIT 1(1) , INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD., INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2011-12

capital and loans and advances to the assessee(s) and also satisfied with the genuineness of transaction between these two lender companies and the assessee(s) namely Ad-Manum Finance Ltd. & M/s. Available finance Ltd. We, thus, taking consistent view find no reason to interfere in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) in the case of Ad-Manum Finance

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

capital gains were clearly available before the\nAssessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings and that the\nRevenue had not brought any material before it, which was not disclosed by\nthe assessee in the original return of income. Thus, the Tribunal concluded\nthat there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material\nfact relevant

DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S MAA UMIYA AGRITECH PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit 1(1) M/S. Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Indore 119, A.B. Road, Aloo Pyaj Mandi, Vs. Indore (Appellant / (Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn8230F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

capital gain 45,00,000/- (as discussed in para 8) Total assess Income 5,38,80,006/- 11. The AO rejected the claim of loss only on the ground that nobody has responded to the notice issued however, the return of income as well as audit report was very much available with the AO as recorded in the assessment order