SATYANARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14

section 54(2) of the Act……” [emphasis supplied] In the instant case, the investment made by assessee of Rs. 11,79,768 towards installation of household items like Air Conditioner, Sofa sets, etc forms an integral part of the new residential house so as to put it in a habitable condition. This cost incurred is an integral part of cost

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing

263 without considering and rejecting the contentions of the Appellant raised in the Appellant's submission dated 19 February 2020. On merits of the issue involved in revision proceedings: 6.Erred by not accepting the Appellant's contention that the provision for mark to market loss on forward contracts is not a contingent liability and hence it should not be disallowed

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

depreciation on the build-operate-transfer arrangement in conformity with the circular, but the Assessing Officer had failed to do so and that therefore the order vas erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. That did not constitute the reasons required to be given by the Principal Commissioner to justify the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263

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

section 119. i) [ITA No.355/Ind/2017] [Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre] The above explanation is c1arificatory in nature. Even before it, the orders made without proper enquiry was liable to be revised u/s 263 of LT. Act. Further this explanation exists as on date on which proceedings u/s 263 have been undertaken and is existing law as on date

M/S. S.R. FERRO ALLOYS,JHABUA vs. THE PCIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

section 263 in respect of the said issue as under: Page 27 of 55 SR Ferro Alloys Page 28 of 55 “Further it was also noticed from the Audit report of the assessee that the assessee had claimed to have taken unsecured loan of Rs.3,86,98,893/- from M/s Nikita Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. It is settled legal position

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

SHREEPAL HUMAD,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishreepal Humad Pr. Cit-1 Near Civil Hospital, Bus Indore Vs. Stand Road, Manasa Madhya Pradesh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaxph1346 K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21 .06.2023

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the petitioners have settled the case under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. 39. The question therefore that arises for consideration is whether the impugned proceedings initiated after the petitioners opted to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 are sustainable

M/S. SANEE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT , BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Sanee Infrastructure Pr.Cit-2, Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Bhopal D-1, Machna Colony, 6 No Bus Stop, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aagcs8307M Appellant By Shri Arun Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit Date Of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01.06.2020 O R D E R

section 263( I) of I.T. Act which is reproduced here below may also be kept in mind for guidance by the AO while passing the fresh assessment order pursuant to this order u/s 263. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the following written 7 ITANo.742/Ind/2018 submissions and various judgments and decisions contending that necessary enquiry was conducted

M/S. FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD.,DHAR vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 M/S. Flexituff International Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd, Vs. Income Tax-1, C-41-50, Sez, Sector-3, Indore Pithampur, Dist. Dhar (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Aaacn5986H Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit Assessee By Shri Manjit Sachdeva & Avinash Gaur, Advocates Date Of Hearing 26.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 14.05.2019 O R D E R

263 of the Income tax Act. 02. That, the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income tax-I, Indore failed to appreciate that the necessary documents pertaining to the claim of deduction under section 10A(lA), interest on income tax and additional depreciation

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

depreciation or good will is concerned. Nothing prevented the Ld. Pr.CIT to conduct enquires as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DG Housing Projects [343 ITR 329], the relevant findings read as under: - "Section 263

MP STATE MINING CORPORATION,BHOPAL vs. PCIT-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimp State Mining Corporation Pr. Cit-1 Paryavas Bhavan Block No.1, Bhopal Area Hills Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcm0300K Assessee By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ars Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 30.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.05.2024

depreciation of new assets is only Rs.3,18,706/- whereas the expenditure on foreign travel of MD is at Rs.2,43,000/-. The total of these two claims is less than 0.01% of the total revenue/income of the assessee. Thus, Ld. Sr. counsel has submitted that section 263

DCIT KHANDWA, KHANDWA vs. M/S RAJRAJESHWAR COTTON CORPORATION, SENDHWA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Cross-

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) & C.O. No. 9/Ind/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit M/S Raj Rajeshwar Cotton Khandwa Corporation, बनाम/ Warla Road, Sendhwa, Vs. District - Khandwa (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aagfr 6243 N Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022

263 is invoked." 4.17 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court elaborately discussed on the Issue of change of opinion. One of the issues of change of opinion so discussed in that order comes into the radius of the instant case. The issue is that "Whether the bar or prohibition under the principle change of opinion will apply even when

M/S M.P.RAJYA VAN VIKAS NIGAM LTD, BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. M.P. Rajya Van Vikas Pr. Cit-1 Nigam Ltd. Bhopal बनाम/ 5Th Floor, Panchanan Building Vs. T.T. Nagar Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaccm0331R

section 263 of the Act on the basis that since the assessee had debited depreciation of Rs.62,66,000/- same

PRASAM RAKESH CHOUDHARY,GIRNAR SOCIETY, BAPURAO GALLI, ITWARI, NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

depreciation claimed by assessee was not allowable due to Explanation to section 43(1). Accordingly, the PCIT-1, Bhopal, after giving opportunity to assessee, passed revision-order dated 26.10.2018 u/s 263

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHOPOAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RASHTRIYA TAKNIKI SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN EVAM ANUNSANDHAN SANSTHAN, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

depreciation claimed by assessee was not allowable due to Explanation to section 43(1). Accordingly, the PCIT-1, Bhopal, after giving opportunity to assessee, passed revision-order dated 26.10.2018 u/s 263

THE DY CIT1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD., INDORE

In the result, All the four appeals of the revenue and one cross appeal of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 263 dated 11.03.2016 and set aside the assessment order dated 27.03.2014 by holding that the order passed by the AO is erroneous so far as the prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It was observed by Pr. CIT that the AO did not take cognizance of points regarding the claim of the assesse treating the supply affording charges

M.P.PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO LTD,INDORE vs. THE DY CIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, All the four appeals of the revenue and one cross appeal of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 263 dated 11.03.2016 and set aside the assessment order dated 27.03.2014 by holding that the order passed by the AO is erroneous so far as the prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It was observed by Pr. CIT that the AO did not take cognizance of points regarding the claim of the assesse treating the supply affording charges

THE DY CIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD., INDORE

In the result, All the four appeals of the revenue and one cross appeal of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 263 dated 11.03.2016 and set aside the assessment order dated 27.03.2014 by holding that the order passed by the AO is erroneous so far as the prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It was observed by Pr. CIT that the AO did not take cognizance of points regarding the claim of the assesse treating the supply affording charges