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

depreciation surrendered by the appellant. Demand notice u/s 156 of the Act pursuant to order u/s 153A of the Act was passed with NIL demand. The quantum order was accepted and no further appeal was preferred. Immunity from levy of penalty on undisclosed income of specified previous year is available as provided in sub-section

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

depreciation surrendered by the appellant. Demand notice u/s 156 of the Act pursuant to order u/s 153A of the Act was passed with NIL demand. The quantum order was accepted and no further appeal was preferred. Immunity from levy of penalty on undisclosed income of specified previous year is available as provided in sub-section

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

156 (Delhi) 19. Commissioner of Income Tax V Arvind Kumar Jain (2012) 18 Taxmann 132 (Delhi) 20. Ishwar Chand Jindal V Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 428 (Delhi-Trib.) 21. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-3(1), Indore V Pravin C Pandya (2013) 38 taxmann.com 408 (Indore-Trib.) 13. To demonstrate that the transaction is a business

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

BALAJI PHOSPHATES LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCITACIT 1(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibalaji Phosphates Limited, Dcitacit 1(1), 305, Utsav Avenue, Indore Vs. 12/5 Ushaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadcb5654R Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 O R D E R

section 154 of the Act to such apparent mistake but disposal of same was not reflected upto date of filing of first appeal due to started recovery proceeding against tax levied. Thus dismissal of appeal is illegal and bad in law. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the company the order of AddI CIT/JCIT(A) refuse to admit

THE ACIT, CIRCLE, RATLAM vs. M/S. MAHALAXMI INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD., RATLAM

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

156 ITR 790 (Del) and Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Nestor Pharmaceuticals Limited (2010) 322 ITR 631 (Delhi), 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id. CIT is erred in holding "that plant & machinery was ready to put to use prior to 31.03.2002, while the assessee has shown fixed assets as capital work in progress

THE ACIT CIRCLE,RATLAM vs. M/S. MAHALAXMI INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD., RATLAM

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

156 ITR 790 (Del) and Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Nestor Pharmaceuticals Limited (2010) 322 ITR 631 (Delhi), 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id. CIT is erred in holding "that plant & machinery was ready to put to use prior to 31.03.2002, while the assessee has shown fixed assets as capital work in progress

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

156,89,42,845. Out of this, during the impugned year an amount of Rs. 14,75,00,000 was recovered from Som Distilleries Limited. This recovered amount has been reduced from net profit while computing the income under the head ‘profits and gains from business and profession’ for the impugned year. There is no benefit claimed by the assessee

M/S. NARMADA MALWA GRAMIN BANK,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-3(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit- 3(1) M/S. Narmada Malwa Gramin Indore Bank, बनाम/ 201, Arcade Silver, 56 Shops, New Vs. Palasia, Indore (M.P.) (Revenue ) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaccn2847F Assessment Year: 2008-09

depreciation. 5. Aggrieved now both the assessee and Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. Narmada Malwa First we take up Revenues appeal In ITANO. 81/Ind/2016 The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) was justified in Law in directing to delete the Penalty levied

THE ACIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. NARMADA MALWA GRAMIN BANK, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit- 3(1) M/S. Narmada Malwa Gramin Indore Bank, बनाम/ 201, Arcade Silver, 56 Shops, New Vs. Palasia, Indore (M.P.) (Revenue ) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaccn2847F Assessment Year: 2008-09

depreciation. 5. Aggrieved now both the assessee and Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. Narmada Malwa First we take up Revenues appeal In ITANO. 81/Ind/2016 The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) was justified in Law in directing to delete the Penalty levied

THE ACIT, - 4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. YASH TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15 Pan : Aaacy1868M

156/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and succeeded. 3. Now aggrieved revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising following grounds of appeal; On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A):- 1.Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in summarily deleting

M/S. ASPIRANT MERCANTILE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(3), INDORE

In the result, these three appeals of by different assessees in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11 Avocado Trading Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company, Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4206K Assessment Year: 2010-11 Aspirant Mercantile Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company,Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4207J

Section 68 on the alleged ground that it is unexplained cash credit. Avocado Trading Co. and others ITA Nos.362 to 364/Ind/2012 2. The Appellant prays that the said addition be deleted. GROUND 2: ADDITION OF TRADE ADVANCES AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT 1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in the upholding

M/S. FROLIC REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(3), INDORE

In the result, these three appeals of by different assessees in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11 Avocado Trading Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company, Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4206K Assessment Year: 2010-11 Aspirant Mercantile Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company,Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4207J

Section 68 on the alleged ground that it is unexplained cash credit. Avocado Trading Co. and others ITA Nos.362 to 364/Ind/2012 2. The Appellant prays that the said addition be deleted. GROUND 2: ADDITION OF TRADE ADVANCES AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT 1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in the upholding

M/S. AVOCADO TRADING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(3), INDORE

In the result, these three appeals of by different assessees in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11 Avocado Trading Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company, Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4206K Assessment Year: 2010-11 Aspirant Mercantile Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company,Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4207J

Section 68 on the alleged ground that it is unexplained cash credit. Avocado Trading Co. and others ITA Nos.362 to 364/Ind/2012 2. The Appellant prays that the said addition be deleted. GROUND 2: ADDITION OF TRADE ADVANCES AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT 1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in the upholding

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

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