SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Disallowance of Excess interest claimed u/s 57 in the Return of Income (Page 35-38) Sir, the assessee had in original return claimed full interest by error which was already rectified by revised return filed by the assessee where interest claimed U/s 57 has been restricted to interest earned during the year. A copy of revised return is enclosed herewith

SHRI MANOJ MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

revision was set-aside by the Tribunal because it was found that the assessee had furnished requisite information and the income tax officer had completed 41 Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 the assessment after considering all facts. Held, that the Tribunal was justified in Law reversing the order of the Commissioner u/s. 263

M/S. CHARITRA GOLD PVT. LTD.,RATLAM vs. THE PR. CIT, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

revision was set-aside by the Tribunal because it was found that the assessee had furnished requisite information and the income tax officer had completed 41 Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 the assessment after considering all facts. Held, that the Tribunal was justified in Law reversing the order of the Commissioner u/s. 263

SHRI ADITYA MUNDRA,DEWAS vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

revision was set-aside by the Tribunal because it was found that the assessee had furnished requisite information and the income tax officer had completed 41 Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 the assessment after considering all facts. Held, that the Tribunal was justified in Law reversing the order of the Commissioner u/s. 263

DHIRENDRA INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,NEEMUCH vs. PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

revision was set-aside by the Tribunal because it was found that the assessee had furnished requisite information and the income tax officer had completed 41 Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 the assessment after considering all facts. Held, that the Tribunal was justified in Law reversing the order of the Commissioner u/s. 263

SHRI MANISH MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

revision was set-aside by the Tribunal because it was found that the assessee had furnished requisite information and the income tax officer had completed 41 Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 the assessment after considering all facts. Held, that the Tribunal was justified in Law reversing the order of the Commissioner u/s. 263

SHRI GOVIND DAS MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

revision was set-aside by the Tribunal because it was found that the assessee had furnished requisite information and the income tax officer had completed 41 Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 the assessment after considering all facts. Held, that the Tribunal was justified in Law reversing the order of the Commissioner u/s. 263

M/S. BHANDARI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

revised u/s 263 of the Act [ITA No.355/Ind/2017] [Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre] but also there should be the element of “unsustainability” in the order of the assessing officer, which empowers the commissioner to issue notice and to proceed to pass an appropriate order. That Hon’ble High Court has held as under (at page 562) : “In this case, the record

AGROH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P LTD,MHOW vs. PR CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Agroh Infrastructure Pr. Cit (Central) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Aqua Point, A.B.Road, Vs. Umaria, Mhow, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaeca 2752 L Assessee By Shri Manish Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2023

u/s 263 of the Act. Ld. Pr. CIT again invoked the provision of section 263 vide notice dated 23.03.2020 as well as dated 09.02.2021 on the issue of interest on income tax which was not disallowed by the ld. AO. Ld. AR has submitted that the second revision

M/S. SANEE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT , BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Sanee Infrastructure Pr.Cit-2, Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Bhopal D-1, Machna Colony, 6 No Bus Stop, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aagcs8307M Appellant By Shri Arun Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit Date Of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01.06.2020 O R D E R

revised return filed by assessee. Commissioner was well within his power under section 263 to direct fresh assessment. In view of the detailed reasons given and discussions made herein above, the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 02.05.2017 made by the DCIT 5(1), Bhopal for the AY 2015-16 is hereby set aside u/s 263 with the direction

M/S. DEVI SHAKUNTALA THKARAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Devi Shakuntala Dcit Thakral Charitable (Exemption) बनाम/ Foundation Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaatd2943B

disallowed in the scrutiny assessment by Ld. AO. [PB 04] 2. Ld. CIT(Exemption) while passing the order u/s 263 set aside the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 03.03.2016 and directed assessing officer to reframe the assessment order denovo and after verifying the method of accounting actually followed on year to year basis. [order passed u/s 263 page

M/S RANA & JOSHI BUILDTECH P LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pr. Cit-1 Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (Formerly Known As M/S Rana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) Vs. 218 Civil Lines, Below Dainik Bhaskar Office Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcr9858P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .09.2024

revision order has also been challenged in appeal before the CIT(A). Further the assesse also challenged penalty order passed u/s 271E by filing the appeal before the CIT(A) within the period of limitation. All these facts and circumstances show that the assesse was very prompt in taking necessary steps for filing the appeal whenever it is advised

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

u/s 263: Case laws on the power of Commissioner, favour Revenue, in folloiwng situations as regards enquiry by Assessing Officer : a. Complete failure to conduct relevant enquiry. b. Conducting enquiry but not taking it to its logical conclusion. c. Conducting enquiry but drawing the wrong conclusion. 6.1 Reference is invited to recent judgement of Kolkata Tribunal in the case

GAURANG METALS P LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Gaurang Metals Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aabcg2498Q Assesseeby Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2023

disallowance as per provisions of section 14A. 7. Aggrieved by such revision-order, the assessee has filed this appeal. 8. By means of various grounds raised in the Appeal Memo which are not being reproduced for the sake of brevity, the appellant-assessee requires us to adjudicate whether or not the revision-order passed by Ld. PCIT u/s 263

M/S ROCKBED RENOVATORS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirockbed Renovators Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 7-A, Panjabi Bagh Raisen Road Bhopal Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7151G Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2024

revision order dated 28.03.2023 of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal passed u/s 263 of the Act for Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. That the order of the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal u/s 263 of the Act is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 2. That the Ld. Pr. Commissioner

SHRI JANKILAL,UJJAIN vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jankilal Pr.Cit-1 बनाम/ 12, Chimanganj Mandi Indore Agar Road, Ujjain Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aczpj 2632 A Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

263 of the act. 5. By the aforesaid show-cause notice, the assessee was asked to explain as to why the assessment-order may not be revised. In response thereto, the assessee made a detailed submission to Ld. PCIT which is re-produced in Para No. 3 of the revision-order. 6. However, none of those submissions impressed

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

263 of the Act. In such matters, to remand the matter/issue to the Assessing Officer would imply and mean the CIT has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed the Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question. 17. This distinction must be kept in mind by the CIT while exercising jurisdiction under Section 263

RAJKUMAR GOYAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assesse is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniraj Kumar Goyal Pr. Cit-2 42, Narmda Marg Barwaha Indore Vs. Khargone (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Ackpg 1896N Assessee By Shri Ram Gilda, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.11.2023

u/s 263 on the basis of the proposal and suggestion of AO shows that the Pr. CIT has not taken an independent decision by application of mind on the assessment record but it is a borrowed satisfaction. He has submitted that the assessee accepted first disallowance of Rs.90,022/- and the same may be rectified as per the provisions