M/S. SANEE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT , BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Sanee Infrastructure Pr.Cit-2, Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Bhopal D-1, Machna Colony, 6 No Bus Stop, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aagcs8307M Appellant By Shri Arun Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit Date Of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01.06.2020 O R D E R

revised return filed by assessee. Commissioner was well within his power under section 263 to direct fresh assessment. In view of the detailed reasons given and discussions made herein above, the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 02.05.2017 made by the DCIT 5(1), Bhopal for the AY 2015-16 is hereby set aside u/s 263 with the direction

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

depreciation at Rs.1,53,066/- to be carry forward for set up in subsequent years. 3. After passing of the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, Ld. Pr. CIT examined the assessment records and documents filed by the assessee and notice that the M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. assessment order is prima facie, erroneous and prejudicial

SATYANARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14

Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue - Assessment year 2004- 05 - Assessee sold an immovable property and claimed capital loss after indexation - Commissioner had doubts about valuation and sale consideration received but he had not examined said aspect himself and had merely given a finding that order passed by Assessing Officer was erroneous as Assessing Officer had not properly

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

revision would be unsustainable insofar as the issue raised by Pr. CIT is in no way connected to the issues that have been raised in the limited scrutiny assessment. Thus, the decision in the case of Sri Sushanta Kumar Choudhury (supra) is clearly distinguishable. Therefore, the prayer of the ld. CIT DR that the matter be referred to Larger Bench

M.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16

revision order passed u/s 263 pursuant to the amendment made w.e.f. 1st June 2015 is bad in law. 5. That the Pr. CIT grossly erred in law in holding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was very casual and passed in a hurried manner did not examine all the material facts of the case and was erroneous

M/S. FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD.,DHAR vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 M/S. Flexituff International Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd, Vs. Income Tax-1, C-41-50, Sez, Sector-3, Indore Pithampur, Dist. Dhar (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Aaacn5986H Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit Assessee By Shri Manjit Sachdeva & Avinash Gaur, Advocates Date Of Hearing 26.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 14.05.2019 O R D E R

revision u/s 263 of the Income tax Act. 02. That, the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income tax-I, Indore failed to appreciate that the necessary documents pertaining to the claim of deduction under section 10A(lA), interest on income tax and additional depreciation

PRASAM RAKESH CHOUDHARY,GIRNAR SOCIETY, BAPURAO GALLI, ITWARI, NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

depreciation claimed by assessee was not allowable due to Explanation to section 43(1). Accordingly, the PCIT-1, Bhopal, after giving opportunity to assessee, passed revision-order dated 26.10.2018 u/s 263

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHOPOAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RASHTRIYA TAKNIKI SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN EVAM ANUNSANDHAN SANSTHAN, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

depreciation claimed by assessee was not allowable due to Explanation to section 43(1). Accordingly, the PCIT-1, Bhopal, after giving opportunity to assessee, passed revision-order dated 26.10.2018 u/s 263

SHREEPAL HUMAD,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishreepal Humad Pr. Cit-1 Near Civil Hospital, Bus Indore Vs. Stand Road, Manasa Madhya Pradesh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaxph1346 K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21 .06.2023

u/s 263 we find that the assessee has challenged the order of the AO in the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on the issue of addition made by the AO on account of estimation of income on undisclosed turnover by applying net profit rate @ 8%. The assessee opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020 for settlement of tax dispute

M.P.PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO LTD,INDORE vs. THE DY CIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, All the four appeals of the revenue and one cross appeal of the assessee are dismissed

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

revision order section 263 dated 11.03.2016 and set aside the assessment order dated 27.03.2014 by holding that the order passed by the AO is erroneous so far as the prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It was observed by Pr. CIT that the AO did not take cognizance of points regarding the claim of the assesse treating the supply

THE DY CIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD., INDORE

In the result, All the four appeals of the revenue and one cross appeal of the assessee are dismissed

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

revision order section 263 dated 11.03.2016 and set aside the assessment order dated 27.03.2014 by holding that the order passed by the AO is erroneous so far as the prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It was observed by Pr. CIT that the AO did not take cognizance of points regarding the claim of the assesse treating the supply

THE DY CIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD., INDORE

In the result, All the four appeals of the revenue and one cross appeal of the assessee are dismissed

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

revision order section 263 dated 11.03.2016 and set aside the assessment order dated 27.03.2014 by holding that the order passed by the AO is erroneous so far as the prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It was observed by Pr. CIT that the AO did not take cognizance of points regarding the claim of the assesse treating the supply

THE DY CIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD., INDORE

In the result, All the four appeals of the revenue and one cross appeal of the assessee are dismissed

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

revision order section 263 dated 11.03.2016 and set aside the assessment order dated 27.03.2014 by holding that the order passed by the AO is erroneous so far as the prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It was observed by Pr. CIT that the AO did not take cognizance of points regarding the claim of the assesse treating the supply

THE DY CIT1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD., INDORE

In the result, All the four appeals of the revenue and one cross appeal of the assessee are dismissed

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

revision order section 263 dated 11.03.2016 and set aside the assessment order dated 27.03.2014 by holding that the order passed by the AO is erroneous so far as the prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It was observed by Pr. CIT that the AO did not take cognizance of points regarding the claim of the assesse treating the supply

MP STATE MINING CORPORATION,BHOPAL vs. PCIT-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimp State Mining Corporation Pr. Cit-1 Paryavas Bhavan Block No.1, Bhopal Area Hills Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcm0300K Assessee By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ars Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 30.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.05.2024

depreciation u / s 32was in accordance with the law and therefore the learned CIT is unjustified in invoking the provision of 263 of the Act. Hence the order u/s. 263 is bad in law 4.That on facts and in the circumstances of case and in law the assessment order passed by the learned A.O is neither erroneous nor prejudicial

ANDRITZ HYDRO P LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing

u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 ( in short the ‘Act’). 2. At first, we shall take up the assessee’s appeal i.e. ITANo.198/Ind/2020 for the assessment year 2014-15 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Andritz Hydro Private Limited (here-in-after referred

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

revised are that it should be erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. These two conditions are required to be satisfied conjointly. If any of them is not satisfied in that event exercise of power under section 263 of the Act would become bad in law. 12. Now coming to the facts of the present

DR DESHMUKH MOTHER AND CHILD CARE ,UJJAIN vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Dr. Deshmukh Mother & Pr. Cit-I, Child Care, Indore बनाम/ 27, Nirman Nagar, Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aahfd3407H Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Negi, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2023

revision-order passed by Ld. PCIT u/s 263 is valid in the eyes of law? Page 5 of 13 Dr. Deshmukh Mother & Child Care Assessment year 2017-18 10. Ld. Representatives of both sides made a lengthy discussion on various issues one by one. We sum up the arguments and contentions of both sides as also our analysis issue-wise