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

capital gain in one year only more so when the amount was actually received by the appellant in five years. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld Assessing officer erred in not allowing proper deduction under section 548 and 54F of the Act on the basis of investment as made

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisantosh Agrawal Pr. Cit-1 Mig-11, Mla Quarters Bhopal Vs. Jawahar Chowk Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ahkpa 1449E Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16 .08.2023

Capital Gain, interest income during the FY 2009-10. It is also noticed that the assessee had not filed his return of income u/s 139(1) of the IT Act, which is on due on 31/07/2010. Assessee has filed his return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 of the 1.T. Act, on 30/08/2017 vide acknowledgement

DCIT-5(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M P STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

gainfully said that the\nAO cannot treat the assessee as defaulter of section 271(1)(c) in AY 2013-14\n& 2014-15 when the situation is just same as in AY 2012-13.\n10.\nAt this stage, we would also like to address one more plea taken by Ld.\nDR for revenue that the assessee has not contested

BABITA CHELAWAT,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed & the impugned order is set aside

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

234C of the IT Act as per Act and decision so made in this case and after giving the credit of prepaid taxes. 9.0 In the end, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal & has raised the following grounds of appeal

CUMMINS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P) LTD.,DEWAS vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicommins Technologies India Acit, Circle -1(1) Private Limited Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area No.2, A.B. Road, M.P. (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabct2018B Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved & Pinkesh Vakharia Ars Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

capital work-fin-progress) and no depreciation was claimed against this cost in the return of income filed by the Assessee for the year under consideration. 5.4 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO / T * PO pursuant to the directions of Hon'ble DRP, has erred by not taking cognizance

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M P STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

gainfully said that the\nAO cannot treat the assessee as defaulter of section 271(1)(c) in AY 2013-14\n& 2014-15 when the situation is just same as in AY 2012-13.\n10. At this stage, we would also like to address one more plea taken by Ld.\nDR for revenue that the assessee has not contested

GOURAV BHARGAVA,BHOPAL vs. ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

234C Rs.46,258/-respectively.\n9. That, with respect to the disallowance of Rs.12,218/- under Section\n43B of the Act pertaining to the payment of Professional Tax for the FY\n2022-23, the same is rightfully disallowed in the Tax Audit Report and\nwrongfully allowed in the Income Tax Report, and therefore we admit\nthe disallowance of the same