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

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

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition of Rs. 7

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

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

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition of Rs. 7

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

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

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition of Rs. 7

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

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

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition of Rs. 7

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

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

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition of Rs. 7

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

94,03,355) Depreciation as per Income Tax 4 (41,52,794) 5 [3-4] (50,35,56,149) Income considered separately 6 Dividend income 21,91,060 Rent received 8,65,707 Diminution in value of shares 8,90,772 (39,47,539) 7 Profit and Gains from Business or (50,75,03,688) Profession [5-6] 10. From

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

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY SHUKLA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Sanjay Shukla, Acit Central Circle 2, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit Central Circle 2, Shri Sanjay Shukla, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03..2022 आदेश / O R D E R

94,980/-. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by serving of notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer (in short Ld. AO) called for various informations including explanation for unsecured loans taken during the year. Detailed submissions were filed. Ld. AO also examined the issue of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, delay

SHRI SANJAY SHUKLA ,INDORE vs. ACIT,CENTRAL-CIRLE-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Sanjay Shukla, Acit Central Circle 2, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit Central Circle 2, Shri Sanjay Shukla, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03..2022 आदेश / O R D E R

94,980/-. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by serving of notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer (in short Ld. AO) called for various informations including explanation for unsecured loans taken during the year. Detailed submissions were filed. Ld. AO also examined the issue of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, delay

SARTHAK REAL BUILT PVT. LTD, ,INDORE vs. DY, CIT,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned.” Thus, the words “Income chargeable to tax” are of prime importance to the section 147. However, it can be seen from the reasons as reproduced above that the Assessing Officer did not mention the words “Income chargeable to tax” in the reasons which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S FERRO CONCREATE CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT. LTD INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned.” Thus, the words “Income chargeable to tax” are of prime importance to the section 147. However, it can be seen from the reasons as reproduced above that the Assessing Officer did not mention the words “Income chargeable to tax” in the reasons which

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned.” Thus, the words “Income chargeable to tax” are of prime importance to the section 147. However, it can be seen from the reasons as reproduced above that the Assessing Officer did not mention the words “Income chargeable to tax” in the reasons which

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned.” Thus, the words “Income chargeable to tax” are of prime importance to the section 147. However, it can be seen from the reasons as reproduced above that the Assessing Officer did not mention the words “Income chargeable to tax” in the reasons which

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

94 (Gujarat) (vi) Allied Strips Limited v. ACIT (2016) 96 CCH 0004 Del HC 29. The Ld. Counsel also challenged the reopening of the case of the assessee after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year in light of the first proviso to section 147 of the Act which specifically provided that no action

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

94 (Gujarat) (vi) Allied Strips Limited v. ACIT (2016) 96 CCH 0004 Del HC 29. The Ld. Counsel also challenged the reopening of the case of the assessee after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year in light of the first proviso to section 147 of the Act which specifically provided that no action

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

94 (Gujarat) (vi) Allied Strips Limited v. ACIT (2016) 96 CCH 0004 Del HC 29. The Ld. Counsel also challenged the reopening of the case of the assessee after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year in light of the first proviso to section 147 of the Act which specifically provided that no action

M/S S.D.BANSAL IRON & STEEL P LTD ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

depreciation on extra cost of construction added by him as per report of DVO.” Additional ground by assessee: “That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 47,52,500/- made by AO invoking provisions of section 69C on account of alleged unexplained expenditure vide para 11.6 of order of assessment.” 3. Heard the learned representatives of both

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3 (1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. ENTERTAINMENT AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

94-104 & 300-303, Sch. No. 54, PU-4, A.B. Road, Indore PAN No.AAECM8668D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, A.Rs. Respondent by : Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 01 .09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 21.11.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The bunch of appeals preferred by the Revenue