THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

46A and failed to controvert the documents furnished by the assessee on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee filed ample documentary evidences and discharged the primary onus cast upon it under section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- made by the Ld. AO under Section

DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL vs. VANASHPATI SMRITI SHIKSHA SAMITI, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the cross- objection of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani(Virtual Hearing) & C.O. No.33/Ind/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit (Exemption) Vanashpati Smriti Bhopal Shiksha Samiti, Bhopal बनाम/ (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Vs. P.A. No. Aadts0547H Appellant By Shri P.K. Mitra Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Pavan Ved, Ar Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

46A to show that only cost of tickets was claimed as expenditure and no other expenditure on account of stay, lodging or boarding of the traveler was incurred. However, the Ld. AO emphasized in the remand-report that no register is maintained for use of guest house. After considering submission of both sides, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition

DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S MAA UMIYA AGRITECH PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit 1(1) M/S. Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Indore 119, A.B. Road, Aloo Pyaj Mandi, Vs. Indore (Appellant / (Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn8230F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

depreciation has been filed. iv) This office has called for Books of account and it was observed that ledger was not supported with complete bills. Hence rejection of books of account during the course of assessment proceedings by invoking provision to Section 145(3) are in order. v) Further on examination of books of account it was found dis under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAJEEV AJMERA, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-3(1) Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Co No.23/Ind/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.51/Ind/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Dcit-3(1) Indore Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Assessee By Shri Mahendra Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2022 आदेश/ O R D E R

46A and the Ld. CIT(A) has not only admitted the evidences but also accepted the same vide Para No. 7.3 of his order. Going further, we observe that Ld. CIT(A) has given a very bold and categorical finding in Para No. 7.4 of his order, reproduced earlier, where he has observed “Further, the persons to whom the payments

CHANDUMAL THAWARI,BETUL vs. JCIT RANGE-2, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2010-11

section 145 and rejected the book results and proceeded to estimate profit. The assessing officer adopted the average of gross profit of earlier two financial years and made addition of Rs.6,44,750/-. Further, the assessing officer made addition on account of low withdrawal for household expenses amounting to Rs.6,19,000/- but did not made separate additions as addition

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

46A(3). The time\nframe was short to submit a remand report. The remand/process\nrequires time for thorough verification of books & additional\nevidence submitted by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A).\nThe Summation of Rejoinder is as follows:-\n(1) Revenue has stated all facts earlier.\n(2)Sufficient time of compliance was given to Assessee for Six\nmonths

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL , BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

46A as being claimed by revenue. So far as the decision of Jansampark Advertising (supra) is concerned, that is not applicable to assessee’s case as rightly submitted by Ld. AR. Without repeating Ld. AR’s submissions which we have already narrated in preceding para, we only suffice to say that we agree with Ld. AR that the said decision

SOM DISTILLERIES PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(3), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

46A as being claimed by revenue. So far as the decision of Jansampark Advertising (supra) is concerned, that is not applicable to assessee’s case as rightly submitted by Ld. AR. Without repeating Ld. AR’s submissions which we have already narrated in preceding para, we only suffice to say that we agree with Ld. AR that the said decision

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)

depreciation as the assessee carried out the activities of development of project as an investor and not as a builder. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that without bringing any corroborative evidence on record the profit of the project cannot be estimated @30%. In respect of the other project ‘Almas Elements’, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee

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)

depreciation as the assessee carried out the activities of development of project as an investor and not as a builder. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that without bringing any corroborative evidence on record the profit of the project cannot be estimated @30%. In respect of the other project ‘Almas Elements’, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee

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)

depreciation as the assessee carried out the activities of development of project as an investor and not as a builder. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that without bringing any corroborative evidence on record the profit of the project cannot be estimated @30%. In respect of the other project ‘Almas Elements’, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee

SOM DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Som Distilleries & Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Breweries Limited, 1(1), Vs. Som House, Bhopal. 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay:2014-15 Acit (Central)-1, Som Distilleries & बनाम/ Bhopal Breweries Limited, Vs. Som House, 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

section 250(2)(b) of the Act and in response to his notice, the AO failed to submit any report. Further, in absence of any specific request from the AO, the CIT(A) presumed that the AO did not want to attend the hearings. Thus, when the case involved hefty additions and the AO considered his additions on sound footing

ACIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LTD., BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Som Distilleries & Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Breweries Limited, 1(1), Vs. Som House, Bhopal. 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay:2014-15 Acit (Central)-1, Som Distilleries & बनाम/ Bhopal Breweries Limited, Vs. Som House, 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

section 250(2)(b) of the Act and in response to his notice, the AO failed to submit any report. Further, in absence of any specific request from the AO, the CIT(A) presumed that the AO did not want to attend the hearings. Thus, when the case involved hefty additions and the AO considered his additions on sound footing