ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL , BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

2 Shri Anantpur Trust 20200 3 Shri Sahastra Bahu, Kalchuri Mahasabha 251000 4 Swami Vivekanand, Sardh, ShatiSamaroah 11000 Samiti 5 Ram Kumar Shrivastava 5000 6 Sindhi Kalyan Kendra 11000 7 Iskcon 2100 8 Smt. Geeta Shukla 55000 9 CRY ( Child Right & You) (Uttrakhand Flood) 100000 10 Mata Amrut Mai Satsang Samiti 50000 11 Ganesh Utsav Samiti, MP Nagar, Bhopal

SOM DISTILLERIES PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(3), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

2 Shri Anantpur Trust 20200 3 Shri Sahastra Bahu, Kalchuri Mahasabha 251000 4 Swami Vivekanand, Sardh, ShatiSamaroah 11000 Samiti 5 Ram Kumar Shrivastava 5000 6 Sindhi Kalyan Kendra 11000 7 Iskcon 2100 8 Smt. Geeta Shukla 55000 9 CRY ( Child Right & You) (Uttrakhand Flood) 100000 10 Mata Amrut Mai Satsang Samiti 50000 11 Ganesh Utsav Samiti, MP Nagar, Bhopal

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

124 (MP), where in similar < circumstances it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Thereafter, in so far as the manner in which the statutory notice was required to be issued, the Honble Court 23 Keti Sangam

M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

124 (MP), where in similar < circumstances it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Thereafter, in so far as the manner in which the statutory notice was required to be issued, the Honble Court 23 Keti Sangam

M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

124 (MP), where in similar < circumstances it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Thereafter, in so far as the manner in which the statutory notice was required to be issued, the Honble Court 23 Keti Sangam

THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance u/s 68 of the Act pertaining to accommodation entry received by the assessee through shell entities and has also paid commission to the intermediaries @ 1%. The ld. CIT-DR submitted that the AO made addition by considering the statement of Director of Mega Money Commodities Pvt. Ltd. (MMCPL) which was deleted by the ld.CIT(A) without any basis. Therefore

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance u/s 68 of the Act pertaining to accommodation entry received by the assessee through shell entities and has also paid commission to the intermediaries @ 1%. The ld. CIT-DR submitted that the AO made addition by considering the statement of Director of Mega Money Commodities Pvt. Ltd. (MMCPL) which was deleted by the ld.CIT(A) without any basis. Therefore

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance u/s 68 of the Act pertaining to accommodation entry received by the assessee through shell entities and has also paid commission to the intermediaries @ 1%. The ld. CIT-DR submitted that the AO made addition by considering the statement of Director of Mega Money Commodities Pvt. Ltd. (MMCPL) which was deleted by the ld.CIT(A) without any basis. Therefore

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

disallowing said payments under section 40A (3)- Whether on facts, impugned revisional order did not require any interference- Held, yes [Para-16] [ In favour of revenue] 4.0 Therefore, in view of the above discussion I am of the considered opinion that the order dated: 06.01.2016 for A.Y. 2013-14 is erroneous in so far as it is also prejudicial

MAHENDRA SINGH CHAWLA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

disallowed the entire indexed cost of the house sold of Rs. 986560 for which no Page 14 of 21 ITANo.245/Ind/2024 Mahendra Singh Chawla reason has been mentioned except for the improvement cost of Rs. 115000 as mentioned above. In this regard it is submitted as under: The appellant in the year 1994-95 had purchased a house

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

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

disallowance made at Rs.2048173/- therefore, be kindly deleted. 4. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned lower authorities wholly wrong and opposed to fact that the society had paid Rs.561877 to Vijay Ramani who is the member of the society and therefore, there is violation of section

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

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

disallowance made at Rs.2048173/- therefore, be kindly deleted. 4. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned lower authorities wholly wrong and opposed to fact that the society had paid Rs.561877 to Vijay Ramani who is the member of the society and therefore, there is violation of section

DCIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL vs. SHRI AGRAWAL EDUCATIONAL & WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit(Central)-Ii, Shri Agarwal Education & Bhopal Welfare Society बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aacts 0481 M Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.10.2022

section 13 of the Act. There is no documentary evidence or otherwise to presume that such services were made available to the specified person in lieu of his service to assessee trust, so argument remained to be theoretical, nothing more. Therefore, in view of categorical provision Page 3 of 9 Shri Agrawal Education & Welfare society Assessment year

ACIT CENTRAL -2, BHOPAL vs. SHRI AGARWAL EDUCATION & CULTURAL SOCITEY, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit(Central)-Ii, Shri Agarwal Education & Bhopal Welfare Society बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aacts 0481 M Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.10.2022

section 13 of the Act. There is no documentary evidence or otherwise to presume that such services were made available to the specified person in lieu of his service to assessee trust, so argument remained to be theoretical, nothing more. Therefore, in view of categorical provision Page 3 of 9 Shri Agrawal Education & Welfare society Assessment year

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. DR. SHRI RAJEEV CHAUDHARY, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Pan : Abkpc5729K Assistant Commissioner Of V/S Dr.Rajeev Choudhary Income Tax, 1, Shiv Vilas Palace Circle-2(1), Indore Indore

section 143(3) of IT, Act, 1961 at Rs.3,17,71,700/- 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded as Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at Rs.2,15,542/- and allowed the assessee’s claim of profit from purchase and sale of equity shares held for less

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowing entire deprecation claimed by appellant and secondly not justified in estimating NP @ 5%. Thus, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 2,04,60,184/- is Deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed.” 18. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the facts discussed above squarely establish that

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowing entire deprecation claimed by appellant and secondly not justified in estimating NP @ 5%. Thus, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 2,04,60,184/- is Deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed.” 18. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the facts discussed above squarely establish that

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowing entire deprecation claimed by appellant and secondly not justified in estimating NP @ 5%. Thus, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 2,04,60,184/- is Deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed.” 18. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the facts discussed above squarely establish that