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

PRAMOD PALIWAL,KHANWA vs. ACIT KHANWA, KHANWA

In the result Ground No. 1 (a) &

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10 Shri Pramod Paliwal, Acit, Prop. M/S. Pragati Vs. Khandwa Construction, Ramkishanganj, Khandwa (M.P) (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Adapp8012A Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, Cas Date Of Hearing 10.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 17.10.2019 O R D E R

127 DTR 291 (Kar.) vi) CITvs. Hewlett Packard Globalsoft Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 386 (Kar.) vii) CITvs. Indian Rare Earths Ltd. (2015) 374 ITR 105 (Bom.) viii) Asteroids Trading & Investments (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2009) 308ITR 190 (Born.) ix) CITvs. Usha International Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 485 (Del.) x) PVP Ventures Ltd. vs. ACIT (2015) 94 CCH 147 (Chen

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

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

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned.” Thus, the words “Income chargeable to tax” are of prime importance to the section 147. However, it can be seen from the reasons as reproduced above that the Assessing Officer did not mention the words “Income chargeable to tax” in the reasons which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S FERRO CONCREATE CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT. LTD INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned.” Thus, the words “Income chargeable to tax” are of prime importance to the section 147. However, it can be seen from the reasons as reproduced above that the Assessing Officer did not mention the words “Income chargeable to tax” in the reasons which

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned.” Thus, the words “Income chargeable to tax” are of prime importance to the section 147. However, it can be seen from the reasons as reproduced above that the Assessing Officer did not mention the words “Income chargeable to tax” in the reasons which

SARTHAK REAL BUILT PVT. LTD, ,INDORE vs. DY, CIT,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned.” Thus, the words “Income chargeable to tax” are of prime importance to the section 147. However, it can be seen from the reasons as reproduced above that the Assessing Officer did not mention the words “Income chargeable to tax” in the reasons which

THE ACIT, 5(1), INDORE vs. M/S. SYMBIOTIC PHARMALAB LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit 5(1), M/S. Symbiotic Indore बनाम/ Pharmalab Ltd. 385, Vs. Pigdamber, Rau, Indore (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aagcs9311 Revenue By Shri Ashima Gupta, Cit- Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Kapil Shah, Cas Date Of Hearing: 29.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.12.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal Of Revenue Pertaining To A.Y. 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Ii, Indore, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Dated 31.12.2015 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On M/S. Symboitic Pharmalab Ltd. Itano.373/Ind/2016 05.12.2011 By Acit, 5(1) Indore. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Restricting The Addition Of Rs. 2,60,50,027/- To Rs.3,74,195/- & Addition Made By The Ao 'After Disallowing U/S 35(2Ab) Deleted To The Extent Of Rs. 2,56,75,832/- On Account Of R&D Expenditure Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessing Officer Had Pointed Out That Disr Has Not Issue Report In Form 3Cl To Dgit Exemption & Even When No Satisfactory Clarification Was Given By The Assessee To The Ao.” “2.Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 9,97,920/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Foreign Exchange Loss Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessing Officer Had Pointed Out That The Loss Claimed By The Assessee In The Year Of Fluctuation In The Rate Of Exchange Or The Same Is Allowable Only In The Year' Of Repayment Of Such Loans.”

127 of the PB. The appellant claimed that an order of extension of approval of in-house research and development facility u/ s 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in Form 3CM from the Department of Science and Technology has also been received by the assessee company clearly granting extension of approval for the purpose of section

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

Depreciation on PET CT SCAN at Rs.1,61,00,262/- has been claimed at higher rate of 40% instead of 15% which has been allowed by the AO without any enquiry. [ITA No.355/Ind/2017] [Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre] L. the AO has allowed salary paid amounting to Rs.4,75,90,791/- without verifying whether TDS as per provisions of the Income

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

section 263 i.e. order should be erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of revenue are not satisfied. 9. Being erroneous always refers to ‘being an error of law / jurisdiction’ i.e. an incorrect application of law. An order passed by an Assessing Officer can be treated as erroneous if the view taken by the assessing officer is unsustainable

SHRI YOGESH HOTWANI,MANDSAUR vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 153A, it was found that the assessee has offered Rs. 77,93,500/- as additional income in his return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 to 2012-13 as against undisclosed income of Rs. 3 crores admitted by Shri Shiv Kumar Hotwani on behalf of the assessee. It was explained to the AO vide letter dated

THE ACIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI YOGESH KUMAR HOTWANI, MANDSAUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 153A, it was found that the assessee has offered Rs. 77,93,500/- as additional income in his return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 to 2012-13 as against undisclosed income of Rs. 3 crores admitted by Shri Shiv Kumar Hotwani on behalf of the assessee. It was explained to the AO vide letter dated

SMT. AABHADEVI AGRAWAL,BURHANPUR vs. ACIT KHANDWA, KHANDWA

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2009-10

Depreciation of Rs 2,09,409/-. The direction as given by the Hon’ble ITAT in Para 7 on inner Page No 5 is reproduced here under:- E]. That in pursuance to the directions of the Hon’ble ITAT, the Ld. A.O. has passed an order u/s 143(3)/254 dt. 22.12.2017 wherein he has maintained the disallowance of Interest