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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

3) of the Act on 25.03.2015. The case of the assessee was thereafter reopened vide issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 18.12.2017 i.e. after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Hence, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the case of the assessee was squarely covered by the first proviso

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE vs. COMMANDER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

3. Before us the Ld. DR has submitted that actual cost of assets acquired in the scheme of amalgamation in the hand of amalgamated company will continue the same as it would have been in the hands of amalgamating companies in the event had there not been any amalgamation. The AO has referred to explanation -7 to section

CUMMINS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P) LTD.,DEWAS vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicommins Technologies India Acit, Circle -1(1) Private Limited Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area No.2, A.B. Road, M.P. (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabct2018B Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved & Pinkesh Vakharia Ars Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

depreciation was claimed against this cost in the return of income filed by the Assessee for the year under consideration. 5.4 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO / T * PO pursuant to the directions of Hon'ble DRP, has erred by not taking cognizance of the evidences submitted by the Appellant which

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). Explanation.—For the purposes of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). Explanation.—For the purposes of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). Explanation.—For the purposes of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). Explanation.—For the purposes of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). Explanation.—For the purposes of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment

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

section 145(3) of the Act and framed the assessment as on the basis of best judgement. 6. The AO has passed assessment order u/s 144 of the Act when there was no response or compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by the AO u/s 142(1) as well as summons u/s 131

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

131 of the Act was also recorded by the Assessing Officer. Ld. Counsel drew our attention to the statement of assessee enclosed at Paper Book pages 21 to 24. The assessee had replied to questions, it was stated that the shares were sold through exchange. Hence, it is not a case where no enquiry was conducted. In fact from

M/S S.D.BANSAL IRON & STEEL P LTD ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

depreciation on extra cost of construction added by him as per report of DVO.” Additional ground by assessee: “That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 47,52,500/- made by AO invoking provisions of section 69C on account of alleged unexplained expenditure vide para 11.6 of order of assessment.” 3. Heard the learned representatives of both

M/S BANSAL EXTRACTION & EXPORT P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Bansal Extraction & Dcit Export Pvt. Ltd. Central-1 3Rd Floor Tawa Complex, Bittan Bhopal Vs. Market E-4, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aadcb 7521 M Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2023

depreciation on extra cost of construction added by him as per report of VO(P&M) is not allowable to assessee under the provisions of Act as addition on account of undisclosed investment has been made u/s 69B of the Act.” 2. The Only grievance of the assessee in the present appeal is regarding the assessed income taken

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

131(1)(d) from DDIT(inv)- Jaipur and after obtaining all the information and documents pertaining to the Donee trust and after verifying the genuineness of the said donation and such an order cannot be termed as erroneous and thus this issue could not have been revised u/s 263. 5· NO JUSTIFICATION EITHER IN LAW OR IN FACTS IN EXERCISING

M/S JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-II, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Jayganga Exim India Pvt. Dy. Cit, Limited Central-Ii, [Formerly Known As ‘Jay Jyoti Bhopal (India) Pvt. Ltd.’] बनाम/ 26, Col. Biswas Road, Ground Floor, Vs. West Side Flat, Kolkata (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacj 8822 E Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

3 of reasons, the AO has noted that the assessee has not shown the transactions relating to M/s Bhagya. Thus, referring to all these paras of reasons, Ld. AR submitted that the sole basis of re-opening assessee’s case adopted by AO is that the assessee had entered into sham transactions of Rs. 5,11,00,000/- with

M/S BANSAL EXTRACTION & EXPORT P LTD ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bansal Extraction & Dcit(Central)-1 बनाम/ Exports (P) Ltd.,Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aadcb7521M Assesseeby Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2023

depreciation on extra cost of construction added by him as per report of VO(P&M).” M/s Bansal Extraction & Exports (P) Ltd. Assessment years 2011-12 2. Heard the learned representatives of both sides and case records perused. 3. Briefly stated the facts are such that a search u/s 132 was conducted upon assesseein June, 2011 and the case

M/S BANSAL EXTRACTION & EXPORT P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No. 82/Ind/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit (Central)-1 M/S. Bansal Extraction & बनाम/ Bhopal Exports (P) Ltd., Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aadcb 7521 M

section 131(1)(d) for estimation of the value of investment but the DVO did not submit report till completion of assessment. Therefore, the AO noted in assessment-order “Since this case shall get barred by limitation on 31/03/2014, therefore, this assessment-order is being passed. However, after receiving the valuation report from DVO, if anything adverse is found, then

M/S. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. THE ACIT NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Nfac) Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Delhi Midc Chakan, Village Vs. Sawardari, Taluka Khed, Pune (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcb 2304 E Assessee By Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

depreciation. Accordingly, both grounds of appeal are allowed. 8. To maintain the rule of consistency we follow the earlier order of this Tribunal and decide this issue in favour of the assessee so far as the subsidy received by the assesse under Maharashtra Industrial Promotion Scheme. 9. Ground no.2 is regarding the addition made

ITO 1(3), AYKAR BHAWAN ANNEX, INDORE vs. M/S. FAIRDEAL ENGINEERING & BODY BUILDING CO. (P) LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

131, the director of the lender-company M/s Drastic Forging Pvt. Ltd. appeared in person and the documentary evidences such as copy of latest ITR of the lender-company for AY 2018-19, copy of ITR of AY 2012-13 and copy of audit report of AY 2012-13 were filed. Thus, the first limb of section 68 i.e. identity