M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

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

section 12AA(3) & 12AA(4) of the Act only on the basis of invoking provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act for cancelling the registration u/s 12AA of the Act which in our view was not correct since only the amount of benefit of exemption can be a subject matter but continuing of registration u/s 12AA

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

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

section 12AA(3) & 12AA(4) of the Act only on the basis of invoking provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act for cancelling the registration u/s 12AA of the Act which in our view was not correct since only the amount of benefit of exemption can be a subject matter but continuing of registration u/s 12AA

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

132 and 121] Sr. Details of the items, relevant to the issue Amount (Rs.) No. stated by Ld. Pr.CIT, in point no. 32 in BP (Computation of income from business or profession) 1 Withdrawal of provision of Inter Corporate 14,75,00,000 Deposit (ICD) 2 Withdrawal of provision of interest on ICD 29,64,954 TOTAL

DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KALYAN TOLL HIGHWAY PVT.LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit(Central)-2 M/S. Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt. Ltd. Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadck9401F Appellant By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

132 of the Act were carried out at various premises of Kalyan Group of Indore on 04.09.2015 which included the assessee company also. Assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A were completed on 29.11.2017 for the year under appeal. Ld. AO observed that assessee has booked bogus purchase of bitumen of Rs.1,83,38,032/-. This amount was not claimed

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing

depreciation to be carried forward to subsequent years was shown as Rs.78,07,50,625/-. Further, the assessee filed revised return of income on 14.1.2016 declaring total income of Rs.18,57,70,341/- after set-off of brought forward losses, the balance loss to be carried forward to subsequent years was shown as Rs.78,05,27,292/-. In the draft

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 250 of the act. 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 assessee in June, 2011 and the case of assessee for AY 2012-13 under consideration was assessed u/s 143(3) vide a consolidated assessment-order dated 27.03.2014 wherein

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

132 of the Act were initiated in the Chugh Group by the DDIT(Inv.)-II, Indore on 21-09-2012. Subsequently, notices u/s 153A of the Act were issued to the assessee and in response, the assessee furnished returns for respective assessment years. Thereafter, the case of the assessee, for all three assessment years was selected for scrutiny and necessary

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

132 of the Act were initiated in the Chugh Group by the DDIT(Inv.)-II, Indore on 21-09-2012. Subsequently, notices u/s 153A of the Act were issued to the assessee and in response, the assessee furnished returns for respective assessment years. Thereafter, the case of the assessee, for all three assessment years was selected for scrutiny and necessary

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

132 of the Act were initiated in the Chugh Group by the DDIT(Inv.)-II, Indore on 21-09-2012. Subsequently, notices u/s 153A of the Act were issued to the assessee and in response, the assessee furnished returns for respective assessment years. Thereafter, the case of the assessee, for all three assessment years was selected for scrutiny and necessary

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

section 143(3) concerning the assessment-year [“AY”] 2011-12, the assessee has filed this appeal on following solitary ground: “(1) That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining addition of Rs. 38,48,342/- made by the AO u/s 69B of Act on account of alleged excess cost of construction of plant and machinery relying on report

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. MARAL OVERSEAS LTD, KHARGONE

In the result, the “Impugned

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshideputy Commissioner Of Maral Overseas Ltd. बनाम/ Income Tax- 4(1) Maral Srovar, V & Po, Vs. Indore Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal (Pan: Aaccm0230B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satyajeet Goyal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026

132, the issue of treatment of interest of Rs. 1,51,54,534/- received by the company from various banks on share application money. In this respect the relevant undisputed facts, also taken note of by Hon'ble ITAT are as under: - a. The assessee has received income of Rs. 1,51,54,534/- as interest from various banks

DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,39,230/- under section 68, whereas section 68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine income

GOVIND HARINARAYAN AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,39,230/- under section 68, whereas section 68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine income

MANISH GOVIND AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,39,230/- under section 68, whereas section 68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine income

SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,39,230/- under section 68, whereas section 68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine income

PRAYANK JAIN,INDORE vs. ACIT5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,39,230/- under section 68, whereas section 68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine income

SAPAN SHAH,INDORE vs. ACIT-4(I), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,39,230/- under section 68, whereas section 68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine income