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

DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M/S A-ONE ENCLAVE,UJJAIN vs. THE PR.CIT, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13

depreciation has to be incurred which resulted loss during the year. 4. Disallowance of Remuneration paid to partners:- On the perusal of computation of income, it is found that the assessee firm has claimed deduction for remuneration to the partners amounting to Rs.9,00,000/-. The assessee was asked to explain the justification of claiming such higher remuneration while there

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

69C could not have been simply dropped on the ground that the claim has been withdrawn. Therefore, the Commissioner was perfectly justified in coming to his conclusions in respect of this issue. [Para 21} 2. Toyota Motor Corpn. (2008) 174 Taxman 395 Delhi Affirmed in (2008) 173 Taxman 458(SC) The reasoning given by the Tribunal could not be, accepted

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 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

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