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

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

119-121]In AY 2002-03 income under the head ‘Profits and Gains from Business or Profession was computed as under – [PB 89-90] From the above table it is evident that while computing the total income for AY 2002-03, amount of provision of bad debts on ICD has been added back to the net profit for the purpose

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

section 263( I) of I.T. Act which is reproduced here below may also be kept in mind for guidance by the AO while passing the fresh assessment order pursuant to this order u/s 263. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the following written 7 ITANo.742/Ind/2018 submissions and various judgments and decisions contending that necessary enquiry was conducted

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

119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee" rendered ,by the Jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case

M/S. BHANDARI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

section 119. i) [ITA No.355/Ind/2017] [Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre] The above explanation is c1arificatory in nature. Even before it, the orders made without proper enquiry was liable to be revised u/s 263 of LT. Act. Further this explanation exists as on date on which proceedings u/s 263 have been undertaken and is existing law as on date

M/S. INDORE PARASPAR SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-I(I), INDORE

In the result this common issue is decided in favour of the assessee and the relevant grounds raised in Assessment Year 2008-09 to Assessment Year 2012-13 in I

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

section 119(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, would bind the Revenue. No question of law, therefore, arises. 8. Resultantly, the Tax Appeal is dismissed. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs.” 30. We have examined the facts of the instant appeal and find that they are similar to the facts adjudicated by the Hon’ble High

M/S INDORE PARASPAR SAHKARI BANK LTD. ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2 (5) , INDORE

In the result this common issue is decided in favour of the assessee and the relevant grounds raised in Assessment Year 2008-09 to Assessment Year 2012-13 in I

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

section 119(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, would bind the Revenue. No question of law, therefore, arises. 8. Resultantly, the Tax Appeal is dismissed. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs.” 30. We have examined the facts of the instant appeal and find that they are similar to the facts adjudicated by the Hon’ble High

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

depreciation and finance charges totalling to Rs. 2,50,89,822/- debited in the profit and loss account came to 4.83% which approximated the net profit rate of 5% approved by the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench itself in the case of the assessee for the A.Y. 2009-10. It is also an uncontroverted finding of fact that

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

depreciation and finance charges totalling to Rs. 2,50,89,822/- debited in the profit and loss account came to 4.83% which approximated the net profit rate of 5% approved by the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench itself in the case of the assessee for the A.Y. 2009-10. It is also an uncontroverted finding of fact that

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

depreciation and finance charges totalling to Rs. 2,50,89,822/- debited in the profit and loss account came to 4.83% which approximated the net profit rate of 5% approved by the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench itself in the case of the assessee for the A.Y. 2009-10. It is also an uncontroverted finding of fact that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

119 (Bom) (Assessment Year 2003- 2004) (ii) D. T. & T. D. C. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 324 ITR 234 (Del.) (iii) ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co.Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 471 (Bom) 8. The Ld. AR of the assessee on principle of consistency submitted that the assessee has admittedly claimed this Page 10 of 57 Prataap Snacks Limited ITA Nos.370

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

119 (Bom) (Assessment Year 2003- 2004) (ii) D. T. & T. D. C. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 324 ITR 234 (Del.) (iii) ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co.Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 471 (Bom) 8. The Ld. AR of the assessee on principle of consistency submitted that the assessee has admittedly claimed this Page 10 of 57 Prataap Snacks Limited ITA Nos.370

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

119 (Bom) (Assessment Year 2003- 2004) (ii) D. T. & T. D. C. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 324 ITR 234 (Del.) (iii) ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co.Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 471 (Bom) 8. The Ld. AR of the assessee on principle of consistency submitted that the assessee has admittedly claimed this Page 10 of 57 Prataap Snacks Limited ITA Nos.370

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

119 (Bom) (Assessment Year 2003- 2004) (ii) D. T. & T. D. C. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 324 ITR 234 (Del.) (iii) ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co.Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 471 (Bom) 8. The Ld. AR of the assessee on principle of consistency submitted that the assessee has admittedly claimed this Page 10 of 57 Prataap Snacks Limited ITA Nos.370

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

119 (Bom) (Assessment Year 2003- 2004) (ii) D. T. & T. D. C. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 324 ITR 234 (Del.) (iii) ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co.Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 471 (Bom) 8. The Ld. AR of the assessee on principle of consistency submitted that the assessee has admittedly claimed this Page 10 of 57 Prataap Snacks Limited ITA Nos.370

DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S MAA UMIYA AGRITECH PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit 1(1) M/S. Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Indore 119, A.B. Road, Aloo Pyaj Mandi, Vs. Indore (Appellant / (Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn8230F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

119, A.B. Road, Aloo Pyaj Mandi, Vs. Indore (Appellant / (Revenue) (Assessee) PAN: AABCN8230F Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR Respondent by Shri S.S. Solanki, AR Date of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement 08.06.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 14.09.2020 of Commissioner of Income

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

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

119 taxmann.com 489. Relevant finding of the Rajkot Bench of I.T.A.T. is mentioned below:- 13. The next controversy arises whether the assessee is acting as a developer or a work contractor in the projects of road development as per explanation 13 attached below section 80-IA (13) of the Act. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer the provisions

SHRI DILIP BUILDCON LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

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

119 taxmann.com 489. Relevant finding of the Rajkot Bench of I.T.A.T. is mentioned below:- 13. The next controversy arises whether the assessee is acting as a developer or a work contractor in the projects of road development as per explanation 13 attached below section 80-IA (13) of the Act. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer the provisions