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

56,76,330 Kalyan Nav Nirman 2010-11 -do- 9,66,510 Kalyan Marble & 2010-11 -do- 6,47,000 Granite Name of assessee A.Y. Penalty u/s Amount Rs. 271(1)(c ) Keti-T 2010-11 -do- 72,81,800 Construction Keti Sangam 2010-11 -do- 85,43,360 Infrastructure Keti Sangam 2009-10 -do- 6,28,330 Infrastructure Keti

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

56,76,330 Kalyan Nav Nirman 2010-11 -do- 9,66,510 Kalyan Marble & 2010-11 -do- 6,47,000 Granite Name of assessee A.Y. Penalty u/s Amount Rs. 271(1)(c ) Keti-T 2010-11 -do- 72,81,800 Construction Keti Sangam 2010-11 -do- 85,43,360 Infrastructure Keti Sangam 2009-10 -do- 6,28,330 Infrastructure Keti

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

56,76,330 Kalyan Nav Nirman 2010-11 -do- 9,66,510 Kalyan Marble & 2010-11 -do- 6,47,000 Granite Name of assessee A.Y. Penalty u/s Amount Rs. 271(1)(c ) Keti-T 2010-11 -do- 72,81,800 Construction Keti Sangam 2010-11 -do- 85,43,360 Infrastructure Keti Sangam 2009-10 -do- 6,28,330 Infrastructure Keti

M/S LAURELS SCHOOL AND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTION P.LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Laurels School & V. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. Management Institutions Pvt. Ltd. 7, Press Complex, A.B. Road, Behind Dainik Bhaskar Press, Indore. Pan-Aaacl4970D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Anil Kumar Garg & Arpit Gaur, Ca Respondent By: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.04.2023

condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” 4. The limitation for filing the appeal in the present case was expired in the month of February, 2022 and the assessee has filed the present appeal on 25th May, 2022 but within the period of 90 as provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court being extension of limitation for the cases where

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

x) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr vs. Yokogawa India Ltd (2017) 291 CTR 0001. (xi) Hon'ble I.T.A.T. Chennai Bench in the case of M/s. Shriram Properties Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (2013) 36 CCH 0297. (xii) Hon'ble I.T.A.T. Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Sadbhav Engineering Ltd V/s DCIT

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

x) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr vs. Yokogawa India Ltd (2017) 291 CTR 0001. (xi) Hon'ble I.T.A.T. Chennai Bench in the case of M/s. Shriram Properties Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (2013) 36 CCH 0297. (xii) Hon'ble I.T.A.T. Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Sadbhav Engineering Ltd V/s DCIT

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

x) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr vs. Yokogawa India Ltd (2017) 291 CTR 0001. (xi) Hon'ble I.T.A.T. Chennai Bench in the case of M/s. Shriram Properties Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (2013) 36 CCH 0297. (xii) Hon'ble I.T.A.T. Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Sadbhav Engineering Ltd V/s DCIT

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

x) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr vs. Yokogawa India Ltd (2017) 291 CTR 0001. (xi) Hon'ble I.T.A.T. Chennai Bench in the case of M/s. Shriram Properties Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (2013) 36 CCH 0297. (xii) Hon'ble I.T.A.T. Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Sadbhav Engineering Ltd V/s DCIT

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condoned. 5 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others 5. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of government works contract for construction of roads. The income-tax return of the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11 was filed on 15.10.2010 declaring total income

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condoned. 5 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others 5. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of government works contract for construction of roads. The income-tax return of the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11 was filed on 15.10.2010 declaring total income

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condoned. 5 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others 5. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of government works contract for construction of roads. The income-tax return of the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11 was filed on 15.10.2010 declaring total income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL vs. SH. PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA, BHOPAL

In the result the “impugned order” is sustained on the first

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit, Prakash Chandra, बनाम/ Bhopal 16/244, Kings Vs. Shopping Centre, Mp Nagar, Zone-I, Bhopal-462011 Madhya Pradesh (Pan:Aappg5194E)

56. Confirmation letter and bank statement of the gift payer was verified. It is seen that transfer of only Rs.10,00,000 is reflected in the bank statement of the payer out of total Rs.24,40,000. The appellant claims that balance amount was received as cash gift. However corresponding withdrawals are not reflected in the bank statement