DILIP BUILDCON LTD ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. Acit Central-1 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent /Revenue) Pan: Aaccd 6124 B Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Shri Yash Kukreja, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2022

29. We, therefore, in view of the above discussion placing reliance on various judgments and decisions and in view of the definition of the word manufacturer defined in section 2(29BA) of the Act hold that: i. In view of the process involved in construction of road the activity carried out is a manufacturing activity. In others words assessee

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1) RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

depreciation of Rs 5,29,073/- even when the said building was used by the assessee and also by the society for running of the school. 6) The Ld CIT(A) was also erred in deciding the charging of interest is consequential in nature even when in the case of re- assessment interest is chargeable under sub-section

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

depreciation of Rs 5,29,073/- even when the said building was used by the assessee and also by the society for running of the school. 6) The Ld CIT(A) was also erred in deciding the charging of interest is consequential in nature even when in the case of re- assessment interest is chargeable under sub-section

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

depreciation of Rs 5,29,073/- even when the said building was used by the assessee and also by the society for running of the school. 6) The Ld CIT(A) was also erred in deciding the charging of interest is consequential in nature even when in the case of re- assessment interest is chargeable under sub-section

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

depreciation of Rs 5,29,073/- even when the said building was used by the assessee and also by the society for running of the school. 6) The Ld CIT(A) was also erred in deciding the charging of interest is consequential in nature even when in the case of re- assessment interest is chargeable under sub-section

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

depreciation of Rs 5,29,073/- even when the said building was used by the assessee and also by the society for running of the school. 6) The Ld CIT(A) was also erred in deciding the charging of interest is consequential in nature even when in the case of re- assessment interest is chargeable under sub-section

M/S. MADHURI REFINERS (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT-3(1), INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Madhuri Refiners Dcit, 3(1) Private Ltd., Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcm 1884 C Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.09.2022 O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

section 2(29BA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 2. Brief facts are such that the assessee-company filed return of income on 30.09.2015 declaring a loss of Rs. 39,72,580/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) were issued, which were duly complied with. During assessment proceeding, Ld. AO observed that

M/S. MADHYA PRADESH CRICKET ASSOCIATION,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed and consequently the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13 Madhya Pradesh Cricket Dcit, 1(1), Association Indore बनाम/ Holkar Stadium, Vs. 7, Race Course Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaatg3527C Appellant By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Shri Arpit Gaur (Ar) Revenue By Shri Lal Chand (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.06.2017

section 2(15) of the Act. 32. In the light of above organizational structure developed in India for development and promotion of game of cricket, we may point out that during the period under consideration pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 the assessee hosted two IPL 52 M.P. Cricket Association matches on behalf of the BCCI and claimed to have received

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

depreciation. 04.That the Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I without appreciating the submission of the assessee company, treated the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and passed order under section 263 of the Income Tax. 05.That the assessee company craves leave to add, alter, amend and or delete any grounds of appeal.” Flexituff International

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT-CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

29 TPO the draft Assessment Order was passed on 20.03.2015 thereby proposing total addition of Rs.218,63,79,685/-. The addition of Rs.212,56,79,027/- was made on account of the upward adjustment for software services by the TPO and addition of Rs.6,07,00,658/- was made for disallowance under Section 14A of the Act as per Rule

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 2(1) , INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

29 TPO the draft Assessment Order was passed on 20.03.2015 thereby proposing total addition of Rs.218,63,79,685/-. The addition of Rs.212,56,79,027/- was made on account of the upward adjustment for software services by the TPO and addition of Rs.6,07,00,658/- was made for disallowance under Section 14A of the Act as per Rule

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

29 TPO the draft Assessment Order was passed on 20.03.2015 thereby proposing total addition of Rs.218,63,79,685/-. The addition of Rs.212,56,79,027/- was made on account of the upward adjustment for software services by the TPO and addition of Rs.6,07,00,658/- was made for disallowance under Section 14A of the Act as per Rule

RNG CONSTRUCTION CO,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL.,JT.,DY.,ASSTT.ITO, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961." [emphasis supplied] 6. Ld. AR thereafter drew our attention to the following decision of Full Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi) dated 19.04.2022; the relevant paras of order are re-produced below: “2..... A return of income declaring income

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

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

29,555/- is a sham transaction, by applying test of human probability, without any evidence against the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in considering the script from which the assessee has earned Long Term Capital Gain as “penny stock”, a term nowhere define under

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

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

29,555/- is a sham transaction, by applying test of human probability, without any evidence against the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in considering the script from which the assessee has earned Long Term Capital Gain as “penny stock”, a term nowhere define under

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

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

29,555/- is a sham transaction, by applying test of human probability, without any evidence against the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in considering the script from which the assessee has earned Long Term Capital Gain as “penny stock”, a term nowhere define under

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

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

29,555/- is a sham transaction, by applying test of human probability, without any evidence against the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in considering the script from which the assessee has earned Long Term Capital Gain as “penny stock”, a term nowhere define under

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

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

29,555/- is a sham transaction, by applying test of human probability, without any evidence against the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in considering the script from which the assessee has earned Long Term Capital Gain as “penny stock”, a term nowhere define under