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

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 of the assessee or any other person. (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from

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

2,84,72,451/- 8/- 8 [ITA No.355/Ind/2017] [Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre] ) excluding other income & depreciation (O)={A-B+C} Profit ratio (D/A) 28.99 % 4.70% 16.84 % (13.95 %) It can thus be seen that after excluding the surrendered income there is net loss in the year under question and the profitability declared is not commensurate with what has been

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

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

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

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

BADAUD SHRI VARDHMAN SHIKSHA ,BADAUD vs. THE ITO NFAC DELHI, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2018-19 Badaud Shri Vardhaman Ito, बनाम/ Shiksha Samiti, Nfac, Badaud Delhi Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aacab5370 Assessee By Shri Sharad Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

119 which mainly includes a (i) Gist of his submissions, (ii) Copies of ITRs of AY 2018-19 and 2019-20 as submitted by assessee to Income-tax Department and (iii) Submissions made by assessee before lower-authorities. Drawing our attention to same, Ld. AR presented following analysis of ITRs filed by assessee for AY 2018-19 under consideration

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 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

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

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. 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

depreciation by the AO in the scrutiny assessment of the lender company would not epso facto lead to the conclusion that the transactions of loan between the lender company and assesse is not genuine. The Pr. CIT has not even verified the balance sheet and bank account statement of the lender company to come to prima facie conclusion that

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

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