INDORE PRAGATISHIL SAHAKARI SAKH SANSTHA MARYADIT,INDORE vs. NFAC, DELHI, INDORE

Appeal stand allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2018-19 Indore Pragatishil Income Tax Department, Sahakari Sakh Sanstha Nfa, बनाम/ Maryadit, Delhi Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaaai3124L Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2024

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merit. 4. The assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds: “(1) The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 10,38,997/- being interest received on fixed deposit on the bank as income from other sources. (2) It was proved before

ADIM JATI SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI MYDT JOBAT,ALIRAJPUR vs. FACELESS ASSESSMENT OFFICER, ALIRAJPUR

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti National Faceless बनाम/ Mydt., Assessment Centre Vs. 01, Jobat, Jobat, Delhi Alirajpur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaala0577E Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in business of providing credit facilities to its members. For AY 2020-21, the assessee filed return declaring total income of Rs. 40/-. In the return of income so filed, the assessee claimed deduction

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

292 days. Ld. AR has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Suo Motu Cognizance for extension of Limitation reported in 441 ITR 722 (SC).Ld. DR has not disputed that the delay in filing the appeal is now covered by the judgment

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

292 ITR 11 (SC) wherein it was laid down that it is a settled proposition that concealment of income . and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different - connotation.-It is settled proposition that where the charge for )e'vrying penalty is not specific, the notice issued under section 271 (1)(c) is bad in law as it does not specify

M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

292 ITR 11 (SC) wherein it was laid down that it is a settled proposition that concealment of income . and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different - connotation.-It is settled proposition that where the charge for )e'vrying penalty is not specific, the notice issued under section 271 (1)(c) is bad in law as it does not specify

M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

292 ITR 11 (SC) wherein it was laid down that it is a settled proposition that concealment of income . and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different - connotation.-It is settled proposition that where the charge for )e'vrying penalty is not specific, the notice issued under section 271 (1)(c) is bad in law as it does not specify

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

292 ITR 0147. (vi) Hon'ble I.T.A.T. Ahmedabad in the case of ACIT Vs Gujarat Info Petro Ltd (2015) 43 CCH 0112. (vii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case olf CIT vs. Surya Merchants Limited SLP(C) No.6729 of 2017. For the proposition that each unit is an independent unit and profit and loss of each unit need

DCIT !(1) INDORE, INDORE vs. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

292 ITR 0147. (vi) Hon'ble I.T.A.T. Ahmedabad in the case of ACIT Vs Gujarat Info Petro Ltd (2015) 43 CCH 0112. (vii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case olf CIT vs. Surya Merchants Limited SLP(C) No.6729 of 2017. For the proposition that each unit is an independent unit and profit and loss of each unit need

M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

292 ITR 0147. (vi) Hon'ble I.T.A.T. Ahmedabad in the case of ACIT Vs Gujarat Info Petro Ltd (2015) 43 CCH 0112. (vii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case olf CIT vs. Surya Merchants Limited SLP(C) No.6729 of 2017. For the proposition that each unit is an independent unit and profit and loss of each unit need

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

292 ITR 0147. (vi) Hon'ble I.T.A.T. Ahmedabad in the case of ACIT Vs Gujarat Info Petro Ltd (2015) 43 CCH 0112. (vii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case olf CIT vs. Surya Merchants Limited SLP(C) No.6729 of 2017. For the proposition that each unit is an independent unit and profit and loss of each unit need