SHRI PRADEEP MAHESHWARI HUF,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

2) of the Act duly served upon the assessee. While scrutinizing the details the learned Assessing Officer (In short `Ld.A.O’) observed that Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.41,29,512/- has been shown from purchase and sale of equity shares of IFCI Ltd. Contract note for purchase of shares, details of payments made for the purchase, necessary documents evidencing sale

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

2) of the Act duly served upon the assessee. While scrutinizing the details the learned Assessing Officer (In short `Ld.A.O’) observed that Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.41,29,512/- has been shown from purchase and sale of equity shares of IFCI Ltd. Contract note for purchase of shares, details of payments made for the purchase, necessary documents evidencing sale

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

2) of the Act duly served upon the assessee. While scrutinizing the details the learned Assessing Officer (In short `Ld.A.O’) observed that Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.41,29,512/- has been shown from purchase and sale of equity shares of IFCI Ltd. Contract note for purchase of shares, details of payments made for the purchase, necessary documents evidencing sale

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

40A(2)(b) 4. An order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer on 14.12.2016 assessing the Total Income of appellant at Rs. 16,21,350/- including the income under the heads Long Term Shaligram Borad Capital Gain of Rs. 7,09,689/- as against Rs. 1,93,656/- as declared in the return

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

capital gain from long-term to short-term based on holding period demonstrated by De- mat A/c, since the assessee has no grievance and accepted the same, we have no point to offer anything from our side. That brings us to conclude that there is nothing to interfere with the order passed by CIT(A); we uphold the same

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

gain was genuine or not. 5. Legal position on power of Commissioner for Revision u/s 263: Case laws on the power of Commissioner, favor Revenue, in following situations as regards enquiry by Assessing Officer: a. Complete failure to conduct relevant enquiry; b. Conducting enquiry but not taking it to its logical conclusion; c. Conducting enquiry but drawing the wrong conclusion

M/S SURJEET AUTO AGENCY ,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-2, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2015-16 M/S Surjeet Auto Agency, Pr. Cit-2, 4-5, Lajpat Nagar, Raisen Bhopal बनाम/ Road, Apsara Cinema, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aatfs 4110J Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Piush Parasar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’ For Short) By Ld. Pr. Cit-2 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 04.02.2020.The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

40A(2)(b) reported in Audit Report and ITR. 3. Higher Turnover reported in Service Tax Return compared to ITR and assessee has deposited large amount of cash in saving bank account. 10. With reference to the above reasons assessee was asked to reply and Ld. AO after considering the submissions by the assessee completed the assessment making certain disallowances

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO -1 (5), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Essargee Construction Ito 1(5) Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Vs. A-10, Mezenine Floor Essarjee House Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaace 8852F Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.08.2023

capital gains tax and the UK reduced its maximum rate of personal tax from 83 to 60 per cent. In 1982, Sweden reduced its marginal rate of personal income-tax from 85 to 50 per cent. In this country, the Government purpons to simplify the income-tax law but pursues the course, may be due to compulsions, in the opposite

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

2 of 30 ITA No. 6 to 9 & 11/Ind/2023 Essarjee Construction P. Ltd. Page 3 of 30 issued notice u/s 142(1) on 12.08.2015. in response to the said notice the assesse filed replies dated 13.07.2015 & 13.08.2015 on the issue of cash payment of Rs.17,50,000/-. The assesse explained that the said cash payment was made on account

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

2 of 30 ITA No. 6 to 9 & 11/Ind/2023 Essarjee Construction P. Ltd. Page 3 of 30 issued notice u/s 142(1) on 12.08.2015. in response to the said notice the assesse filed replies dated 13.07.2015 & 13.08.2015 on the issue of cash payment of Rs.17,50,000/-. The assesse explained that the said cash payment was made on account

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

2 of 30 ITA No. 6 to 9 & 11/Ind/2023 Essarjee Construction P. Ltd. Page 3 of 30 issued notice u/s 142(1) on 12.08.2015. in response to the said notice the assesse filed replies dated 13.07.2015 & 13.08.2015 on the issue of cash payment of Rs.17,50,000/-. The assesse explained that the said cash payment was made on account

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

2 of 30 ITA No. 6 to 9 & 11/Ind/2023 Essarjee Construction P. Ltd. Page 3 of 30 issued notice u/s 142(1) on 12.08.2015. in response to the said notice the assesse filed replies dated 13.07.2015 & 13.08.2015 on the issue of cash payment of Rs.17,50,000/-. The assesse explained that the said cash payment was made on account

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT-1 (1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

2 of 30 ITA No. 6 to 9 & 11/Ind/2023 Essarjee Construction P. Ltd. Page 3 of 30 issued notice u/s 142(1) on 12.08.2015. in response to the said notice the assesse filed replies dated 13.07.2015 & 13.08.2015 on the issue of cash payment of Rs.17,50,000/-. The assesse explained that the said cash payment was made on account

M/S. S.R. FERRO ALLOYS,JHABUA vs. THE PCIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

b) reported in Audit Report & ITR ii. High interest expenditure against new capital 5.1 Thereafter on perusal of the record the Pr. CIT noted that the assesse has taken interest bearing loans of Rs.9.90 crores and unsecured loans of Rs.6.76 crores and debited the interest expenditure in the profit and loss account of Rs.1.10 crores. Simultaneously the assesse has given

THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

gainfully refer to the decision in the case of BEW Cable & Conductors Pvt Ltd in'lTA No.l070/Kol/2012 dated 03.02.2016 wherein on similar facts and circumstances, the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal had deleted the disallowance ofk loss incurred by the assessee in commodity transactions on NMCE during FY 2008-09, which was disallowed by the AO on the ground

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

gainfully refer to the decision in the case of BEW Cable & Conductors Pvt Ltd in'lTA No.l070/Kol/2012 dated 03.02.2016 wherein on similar facts and circumstances, the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal had deleted the disallowance ofk loss incurred by the assessee in commodity transactions on NMCE during FY 2008-09, which was disallowed by the AO on the ground

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

gainfully refer to the decision in the case of BEW Cable & Conductors Pvt Ltd in'lTA No.l070/Kol/2012 dated 03.02.2016 wherein on similar facts and circumstances, the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal had deleted the disallowance ofk loss incurred by the assessee in commodity transactions on NMCE during FY 2008-09, which was disallowed by the AO on the ground

M/S PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

b. CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC) It was held that the power of enhancement under section 31(3) was restricted to the subject matter of assessment or the source of income, which had been considered expressly or by clear implication by the Assessing Officer from the point of view of taxability and that