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/S KETI INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

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

132 of the Act on 05.05.2011, the appellant surrendered the claim of excess depreciation during the course of assessment proceedings. The manner of surrender of depreciation claim was explained during the search proceedings and the same was accepted by Ld. A.O. The assessment order was passed disallowing the depreciation surrendered by the appellant. Demand notice

M/S KETI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

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

132 of the Act on 05.05.2011, the appellant surrendered the claim of excess depreciation during the course of assessment proceedings. The manner of surrender of depreciation claim was explained during the search proceedings and the same was accepted by Ld. A.O. The assessment order was passed disallowing the depreciation surrendered by the appellant. Demand notice

THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE vs. M/S KETI CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) LTD. , INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

depreciation forgone and Rs.1,03,87,500/- on account of expenses incurred for share capital and Rs.28,90,450/- on account of loose papers. The income so offered by the assessee U/S 132(4) was also offered in the return filed in response to notice issued u/s 153A and due taxes were also paid before filing the return of income

THE DCIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. KALYAN TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

depreciation forgone and Rs.1,03,87,500/- on account of expenses incurred for share capital and Rs.28,90,450/- on account of loose papers. The income so offered by the assessee U/S 132(4) was also offered in the return filed in response to notice issued u/s 153A and due taxes were also paid before filing the return of income

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

Depreciation Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Total 12,554,028 12,640,728 10,317,385 10,188,642 6,077,232 Expenses 8,960,546 7,714,292 6,154,570 4,378,113 4,821,128 Adjusted Net Profit Adjusted N P 3.73% 2.51% 3.27% 4.76% 2.85% Ratio 7.3 From the above table it is seen that Assessment

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

Depreciation Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Total 12,554,028 12,640,728 10,317,385 10,188,642 6,077,232 Expenses 8,960,546 7,714,292 6,154,570 4,378,113 4,821,128 Adjusted Net Profit Adjusted N P 3.73% 2.51% 3.27% 4.76% 2.85% Ratio 7.3 From the above table it is seen that Assessment

SHRI SAYYED HAMID ALI,UJJAIN vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Sayyed Hamid Ali Acit-2(1) बनाम/ (Prop. Fairdeal Steel) 60-A, Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area Maxi Road, Ujjain (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Acmpa7063M Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Ujjain, (In Short ‘Cit’), Dated 30.11.2016 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 10.03.2015 By Acit- 2(1), Ujjain.

section 132(4) of the Act in the course of any search or seizure. For making addition on the basis of action carried out u/s 133A of the Act revenue authority need to correlate the surrender with the incriminating material or unrecorded transactions found during the course of survey. 24. We observe that the decision of Chawla Brother

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

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

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

4. Assessee submitted details in respect of amount shown in the return for AY 2015-16 as per point no. 32 in BP i.e. computation of income from Business or Profession. Detailed item –wise break up of Rs. 20,01,58,544 includes the following – [PB 132 and 121] Sr. Details of the items, relevant to the issue Amount

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 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

ASIAN BUSINESS CONECTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT - 1(1) , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2015-16 M/S. Asian Business Dcit-1(1), Connections Private Ltd, Vs. Bhopal Fm-18, Man Sarovar Complex, 7No. Stop, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaica1206D

4. Chadrasekhar Maruti v ACIT [2016] 71 taxmann.com 239 (Mumbai ITAT) 5. M. Amareswara Rao v DCIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 15 (Vishakhapatnam ITAT) 6. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Farida Holding (P) Ltdn(2016) (76 Taxmann.com 10) 7. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai V Madurai Chettiyar Karthikeyan (2014) 45 taxmann.com 274 8. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax V Sunil Chopra

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 4(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. RSR HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION P LTD, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14 Ito 4(1) Rsr Housing Construction P. Bhopal Ltd. बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Byjpc4571L Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Girish Agrawal & Mis. Nisha Lahoti, Ars Date Of Hearing: 12.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal At The Instance Of Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Bhopal Dated 31.01.2020 Which Are Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S 263 Of The Income Tax

depreciation thereon. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,63,46,000/- made by AO on account of unexplained expenditure. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.18,00,000/- made

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