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

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

69C, without any evidence against the assessee, which is quite unjust illegal and against the facts of the case. Appellant craves to leave, add, amend, alter or modify of any ground before final date of hearing. Darshan Kumar Pahwa ITA No.987/Ind/2019 A.Y 2011-12 Re-opening of assessment u/s 147/148 is unjustified and improper That re-opening of assessment

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

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

69C, without any evidence against the assessee, which is quite unjust illegal and against the facts of the case. Appellant craves to leave, add, amend, alter or modify of any ground before final date of hearing. Darshan Kumar Pahwa ITA No.987/Ind/2019 A.Y 2011-12 Re-opening of assessment u/s 147/148 is unjustified and improper That re-opening of assessment

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

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

69C, without any evidence against the assessee, which is quite unjust illegal and against the facts of the case. Appellant craves to leave, add, amend, alter or modify of any ground before final date of hearing. Darshan Kumar Pahwa ITA No.987/Ind/2019 A.Y 2011-12 Re-opening of assessment u/s 147/148 is unjustified and improper That re-opening of assessment

PRAYANK JAIN,INDORE vs. ACIT5(1), INDORE

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

69C, without any evidence against the assessee, which is quite unjust illegal and against the facts of the case. Appellant craves to leave, add, amend, alter or modify of any ground before final date of hearing. Darshan Kumar Pahwa ITA No.987/Ind/2019 A.Y 2011-12 Re-opening of assessment u/s 147/148 is unjustified and improper That re-opening of assessment

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

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

69C, without any evidence against the assessee, which is quite unjust illegal and against the facts of the case. Appellant craves to leave, add, amend, alter or modify of any ground before final date of hearing. Darshan Kumar Pahwa ITA No.987/Ind/2019 A.Y 2011-12 Re-opening of assessment u/s 147/148 is unjustified and improper That re-opening of assessment

M/S BANSAL EXTRACTION & EXPORT P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Bansal Extraction & Dcit Export Pvt. Ltd. Central-1 3Rd Floor Tawa Complex, Bittan Bhopal Vs. Market E-4, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aadcb 7521 M Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2023

depreciation on extra cost of construction added by him as per report of VO(P&M) is not allowable to assessee under the provisions of Act as addition on account of undisclosed investment has been made u/s 69B of the Act.” 2. The Only grievance of the assessee in the present appeal is regarding the assessed income taken

DB POWER LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Db Power Limited, Acit, Central Circle-1, बनाम/ Office Block, 1A, Bhopal Vs. Db City Park, 5Th Floor, Corporate Block, Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone-1, Arera Hills, Bhopal (Pan:Aaccd5475F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Acit, Central Circle-1, M/S Db Power Limited, बनाम/ Bhopal Office Block, 1A, Vs. Db City Park, 5Th Floor, Corporate Block, Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone-1, Arera Hills, Bhopal (Pan:Aaccd5475F) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

depreciation in current year due to non-commencement of business, the AO made an adverse conclusion in Para No. 5.5 of assessment-order for disallowing deprecation in subsequent years on the enhanced value of Rs. 34,43,98,002/- of fixed assets. (iii) With respect to (ii), the AO also made an addition

THE ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. DB POWER LTD, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Db Power Limited, Acit, Central Circle-1, बनाम/ Office Block, 1A, Bhopal Vs. Db City Park, 5Th Floor, Corporate Block, Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone-1, Arera Hills, Bhopal (Pan:Aaccd5475F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Acit, Central Circle-1, M/S Db Power Limited, बनाम/ Bhopal Office Block, 1A, Vs. Db City Park, 5Th Floor, Corporate Block, Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone-1, Arera Hills, Bhopal (Pan:Aaccd5475F) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

depreciation in current year due to non-commencement of business, the AO made an adverse conclusion in Para No. 5.5 of assessment-order for disallowing deprecation in subsequent years on the enhanced value of Rs. 34,43,98,002/- of fixed assets. (iii) With respect to (ii), the AO also made an addition

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

depreciation at Rs.1,53,066/- to be carry forward for set up in subsequent years. 3. After passing of the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, Ld. Pr. CIT examined the assessment records and documents filed by the assessee and notice that the M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. assessment order is prima facie, erroneous and prejudicial

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

69C. Such arbitrary estimates of the learned lower authorities be held as unlawful and unjustified and, therefore, the same be kindly quashed. (9) That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the levy' of interest u/s. 234A, 234B & 234C are unlawful and hence be cancelled. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal

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) further stated that 31 Mohanlal Chugh & others without bringing any corroborative evidence on record the profit of the project cannot be estimated @30%. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

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) further stated that 31 Mohanlal Chugh & others without bringing any corroborative evidence on record the profit of the project cannot be estimated @30%. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

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) further stated that 31 Mohanlal Chugh & others without bringing any corroborative evidence on record the profit of the project cannot be estimated @30%. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

SINGH GOLDEN TRANSPORT CO.,INDORE vs. ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2019-20

69C and/or 69D, as the case may be, read with section 115BBE. Your reply on this issue alongwith on the uncomplied issues of the questionnaires earlier issued in your case should reach this office within three days of receipt of this communication. Any letter furnished by you seeking for adjournment may please be treated as disposed off. Please note that

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:

depreciation on inflated project cost withdrawn by the appellant, it is therefore, rightly contended by the appellant that the AO has levied the penalty uls 271(1)(c) twice in respect of the same issue, once in AY 2013-14 on the entire inflated project cost and second time in AY 2015-16 and AY M/s. Kalyan toll Highways