ROHIT KUMAR YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(5), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirohit Kumar Yadav Ito 5(5) Hig-Dx-2Manishmati Arvind Indore Vihar, Mahishmati Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaupy5015 F Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2024

assessment on the basis of an item of income or disallowance, which has already been made in block assessment of the assessee

M/S INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,INDORE vs. THE ACIT (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2011-12 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit- Indore Development Authority, बनाम/ (Exemption) Ida Building,7, Race Course Vs. Road, Indore Bhopal (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Years: 2012-13 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue)

assessing officer on account of disallowance of expenses u/s 14A. 4. The revenue reserves the right to add, urge or alter all or any other ground/grounds on or before the date of hearing. 8. As regards Ground No.1 of revenue’s appeal for A.Y.2011-12 relating to deletion of addition of Rs.15,73,65,419/- made

THE DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL vs. M/S. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2011-12 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit- Indore Development Authority, बनाम/ (Exemption) Ida Building,7, Race Course Vs. Road, Indore Bhopal (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Years: 2012-13 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue)

assessing officer on account of disallowance of expenses u/s 14A. 4. The revenue reserves the right to add, urge or alter all or any other ground/grounds on or before the date of hearing. 8. As regards Ground No.1 of revenue’s appeal for A.Y.2011-12 relating to deletion of addition of Rs.15,73,65,419/- made

M/S INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,INDORE vs. THE DCIT, 5(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2011-12 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit- Indore Development Authority, बनाम/ (Exemption) Ida Building,7, Race Course Vs. Road, Indore Bhopal (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Years: 2012-13 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue)

assessing officer on account of disallowance of expenses u/s 14A. 4. The revenue reserves the right to add, urge or alter all or any other ground/grounds on or before the date of hearing. 8. As regards Ground No.1 of revenue’s appeal for A.Y.2011-12 relating to deletion of addition of Rs.15,73,65,419/- made

M/S. S.R. FERRO ALLOYS,JHABUA vs. THE PCIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

block assessment in case of lender for A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 passed on 16.03.2014 against which the assesse preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was allowed by the CIT(A) vide order dated 27.06.2019. The Ld. Sr. Counsel has submitted that the AO disallowed

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

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

block assessment order, meaning thereby, there was no substantive addition in existence at all, and the protective addition presupposed the existence of substantive additions. In another words whenever additions were made, they were only substantive additions. The term protective addition is a misnomer, actually it is a substantive addition. The protective addition name has been given to it since

THE DCIT CENTRAL-(1), INDORE vs. M/S AYUSH AJAY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. , INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanii.T(Ss).A. Nos.14 To 16/Ind/2018 (Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10)

block assessment based on estimate. In view of above facts that the, adhoc disallowance is not bases on any material

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL vs. M/S. M. AHUJA PROJECT (INDIA) PVT. LTD., RAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of revenue are dismissed

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

disallowance of interest on account of interest free loans and advances is called far for the year under consideration. Now we take up Department’s Appeals in ITANos.68 & 69/Ind/2022 7. The department has also raised common grounds in these appeals and the grounds raised for A.Y.2014-15 are reproduced as under: “Whether or not on the facts and in the circumstances

M/S. M. AHUJA PROJECT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of revenue are dismissed

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

disallowance of interest on account of interest free loans and advances is called far for the year under consideration. Now we take up Department’s Appeals in ITANos.68 & 69/Ind/2022 7. The department has also raised common grounds in these appeals and the grounds raised for A.Y.2014-15 are reproduced as under: “Whether or not on the facts and in the circumstances

M/S. M. AHUJA PROJECT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of revenue are dismissed

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

disallowance of interest on account of interest free loans and advances is called far for the year under consideration. Now we take up Department’s Appeals in ITANos.68 & 69/Ind/2022 7. The department has also raised common grounds in these appeals and the grounds raised for A.Y.2014-15 are reproduced as under: “Whether or not on the facts and in the circumstances

ACIT CENTRAL-2 BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S M AHUJA PROJECT ( INDIA) P LTD, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of revenue are dismissed

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

disallowance of interest on account of interest free loans and advances is called far for the year under consideration. Now we take up Department’s Appeals in ITANos.68 & 69/Ind/2022 7. The department has also raised common grounds in these appeals and the grounds raised for A.Y.2014-15 are reproduced as under: “Whether or not on the facts and in the circumstances

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

block. Ld. AO further observed that the section 80-IB(10) allows deduction only if the entire housing project is completed within the specified time and since in the present-case, the assessee had completed a part of the project (178 units) but not entire project, it is not entitled to deduction. With such observations, the Ld. AO disallowed deduction

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

block. Ld. AO further observed that the section 80-IB(10) allows deduction only if the entire housing project is completed within the specified time and since in the present-case, the assessee had completed a part of the project (178 units) but not entire project, it is not entitled to deduction. With such observations, the Ld. AO disallowed deduction

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

block. Ld. AO further observed that the section 80-IB(10) allows deduction only if the entire housing project is completed within the specified time and since in the present-case, the assessee had completed a part of the project (178 units) but not entire project, it is not entitled to deduction. With such observations, the Ld. AO disallowed deduction

M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

block. Ld. AO further observed that the section 80-IB(10) allows deduction only if the entire housing project is completed within the specified time and since in the present-case, the assessee had completed a part of the project (178 units) but not entire project, it is not entitled to deduction. With such observations, the Ld. AO disallowed deduction

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

block. Ld. AO further observed that the section 80-IB(10) allows deduction only if the entire housing project is completed within the specified time and since in the present-case, the assessee had completed a part of the project (178 units) but not entire project, it is not entitled to deduction. With such observations, the Ld. AO disallowed deduction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE vs. COMMANDER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of assessee are dismissed

disallowance of claim of depreciation on goodwill as\na result of amalgamation/merger should not be made. The assessee filed its reply dated 30.03.2022. The AO noted that the assessee has claimed depreciation @25% of intangible asset of Rs.29,21,05,207/- shown as goodwill representing the payment over and above the net book value of assets of four amalgamating companies

RAINA GARG,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Raina Garg, Ito-4(1), Prop. M/S. Garg Trading Bhopal Company, बनाम/ Purana Kabadkhana, Vs. Jumerati, Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aawpg4732F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.02.2024

assessment proceedings, the AO has noticed from the balance sheet of the appellant that it has given interest free loan/advance of Rs. 33,20,334/- to some related parties/concerns. These loans/advances were given to five persons. The appellant has submitted that she is a partner in M/s. Garg Industries holding with 25% share in Profit & Loss of the said firm