ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S RUCHI J OIL PVT. LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

capital gain :- a) CIT vs. Accelerated Freeze Drying Co. Ltd. [2011] 337 ITR 440 (Kerala) b) Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. ITO [2003] 264 ITR 193 (Bom.) " It may please be appreciated that the slump sale transaction was therefore not a Specified Domestic Transaction as defined in section 92BA of the Act and it was not required to be reported

ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN vs. A ONE ENCLAVE, UJJAIN

In the result, grounds taken by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1(1), V/S M/S. A One Enclave, Ujjain 3687/1, Hariphatak Road, Ujjain

248/-. Therefore the appeal on these grounds is partly Allowed. A One Enclave 11. We further find that the similar issue was dealt by the Coordinate Bench, Jaipur in the case of M/s. Sanjay Bairathi Gems Ltd, Jaipur vide ITA No.157/JP/17(supra) wherein also the Tribunal after considering the various judgments of Hon’ble courts held that the assessee

GLOBUS HOUSING,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Capital Gain by routing it through paper companies who have no real business or activities and are created on papers for such type of sham transactions. The persons operating such paper companies complete the paper formalities but no real business/ activities are carried out by these companies. The bank accounts are opened and operated only to launder money and provide

M/S SWADESH DEVLOPERS AND BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, BHOPAL

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

Capital Gain on sale of land as business income are not supported by any incriminating material found during the course of search and therefore, assessee succeeds on this legal ground and 16 Swadesh Developers the addition made for A.Y. 2008-09 to A.Y. 2012-13 are deleted and deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act claimed by the assessee

SAHARAYN UNIVERSAL MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

capital gain @ 10 per\ncent. The justice must not only be done but seem to have been done as observed by Lord\nHewart, C.J. in R. v. Susses Justices (1924) 1 KB 256.))\n15. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and restore the\norder of the CIT(A).\"\nPage 12 of 28\nSaharayn Universal Multipurpose

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 .

248 (SC). The learned counsel also submitted that even in the matter of search case where penalty is levied under Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c), following decision of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Karnataka), it has been held that the show cause notice under section 274 was defective as it does not spell

SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

248 (SC) dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Department against the order of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs SSA's Emerald Meadows as reported in [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (Karnataka) following its own decision in the case of CIT Vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

248/- which has been clearly held to be not covered by payment to technical services covered in impugned TCA, hence, adjustment of Rs. 2,70,,70,489/- was directed to be deleted. The DRP has also directed the TPO to verify the payments listed at Serial No. 1,4,8,9,21,and 54 as being commissioning of other projects

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

248/- which has been clearly held to be not covered by payment to technical services covered in impugned TCA, hence, adjustment of Rs. 2,70,,70,489/- was directed to be deleted. The DRP has also directed the TPO to verify the payments listed at Serial No. 1,4,8,9,21,and 54 as being commissioning of other projects

M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

248/- which has been clearly held to be not covered by payment to technical services covered in impugned TCA, hence, adjustment of Rs. 2,70,,70,489/- was directed to be deleted. The DRP has also directed the TPO to verify the payments listed at Serial No. 1,4,8,9,21,and 54 as being commissioning of other projects

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

248/- which has been clearly held to be not covered by payment to technical services covered in impugned TCA, hence, adjustment of Rs. 2,70,,70,489/- was directed to be deleted. The DRP has also directed the TPO to verify the payments listed at Serial No. 1,4,8,9,21,and 54 as being commissioning of other projects

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

248 1,35,825 4,25,176 42,518 22,32,600 2,23,260 Thus the assessee get following relief in these assessment years. Particulars Assessment years 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Disallowance 1860766 2346119 3090263 3849640 10187492 11488340 15478476 , by AO Purchases Disallowance

SMT. SARITA CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

248 1,35,825 4,25,176 42,518 22,32,600 2,23,260 Thus the assessee get following relief in these assessment years. Particulars Assessment years 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Disallowance 1860766 2346119 3090263 3849640 10187492 11488340 15478476 , by AO Purchases Disallowance

LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA L/H SHRI PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

248 1,35,825 4,25,176 42,518 22,32,600 2,23,260 Thus the assessee get following relief in these assessment years. Particulars Assessment years 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Disallowance 1860766 2346119 3090263 3849640 10187492 11488340 15478476 , by AO Purchases Disallowance