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)

section 151 of the Act. Page 4 of 26 M/s DB Power Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 68/Ind/2023 and 73/Ind/2023- A.Y. 2015-16 1(d). That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action of the AO in issuance of the notice under

SANTOSH RATHORE,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Section 151 of the Act and are thus, without\njurisdiction and are void-ab initio.\nIn view of the above, we hereby most respectfully submit that the reassessment\nproceedings have been initiated merely to make further enquiry / roving enquiry /\nfishing enquiry without any basis and without any tangible material or information\non the basis of suspicion and incorrect reasons

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -5(1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT. LTD., BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

151(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has noted, while seeking approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax, that during the course of Revenue audit proceedings, an audit objection has been raised on the ground that the assessee was not eligible to a deduction under Section 80IB from A.Y. 20022003. The Assessing Officer notes that the audit objection

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5 1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

151(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has noted, while seeking approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax, that during the course of Revenue audit proceedings, an audit objection has been raised on the ground that the assessee was not eligible to a deduction under Section 80IB from A.Y. 20022003. The Assessing Officer notes that the audit objection

MS MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2 (1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

151(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has noted, while seeking approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax, that during the course of Revenue audit proceedings, an audit objection has been raised on the ground that the assessee was not eligible to a deduction under Section 80IB from A.Y. 20022003. The Assessing Officer notes that the audit objection

MS MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2 (1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

151(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has noted, while seeking approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax, that during the course of Revenue audit proceedings, an audit objection has been raised on the ground that the assessee was not eligible to a deduction under Section 80IB from A.Y. 20022003. The Assessing Officer notes that the audit objection

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 5(1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

151(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has noted, while seeking approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax, that during the course of Revenue audit proceedings, an audit objection has been raised on the ground that the assessee was not eligible to a deduction under Section 80IB from A.Y. 20022003. The Assessing Officer notes that the audit objection

MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD ,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT -2- (1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

151(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has noted, while seeking approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax, that during the course of Revenue audit proceedings, an audit objection has been raised on the ground that the assessee was not eligible to a deduction under Section 80IB from A.Y. 20022003. The Assessing Officer notes that the audit objection

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

151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132-A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period

CHIRAYU CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,BHOPAL vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradchirayu Charitable Pcit (Central), Foundation,Bhopal Indore Bhopal Highway, Bhaisakhedi, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aaaac3656P Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Advocate, Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar, Advs Date Of Hearing 05.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement .02.2021 O R D E R Per Manish Borad, Am.

151-ITR-150/151 8. Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Saraogi Credit Corporation v/s. CIT reported in 103-ITR-344 9. Hon'ble ITAT Cochin Bench in the case of G.G. Films v/s. ITO reported in 45-TTJ-644. 29 Chirayu Charitable Foundation 10. Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Kamal Engineering Works

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

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

Section 37(1) of the Act. 3. Development charges whether received or not would accrue to the assessee at the rate of Rs.170/- per Sq. Feet at par with 22 buyers of the plots and thus, the development charges would not be a charge on the assessee's profit as the same would be commensurately recoverable from the buyers

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

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

Section 37(1) of the Act. 3. Development charges whether received or not would accrue to the assessee at the rate of Rs.170/- per Sq. Feet at par with 22 buyers of the plots and thus, the development charges would not be a charge on the assessee's profit as the same would be commensurately recoverable from the buyers

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI RAUNAK MARU, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated u/s 132 or books of accounts, other documents or any other assets are requisitioned u/s 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the assessing officer shall –“ 13. It is also seen that the words ‘to the contrary’ are not mentioned in section 153A

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1,, INDORE vs. SHRI RAJUL BHARGAVA, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated u/s 132 or books of accounts, other documents or any other assets are requisitioned u/s 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the assessing officer shall –“ 13. It is also seen that the words ‘to the contrary’ are not mentioned in section 153A

PUMARTH CREDIT CAPITAL LTD,INDORE vs. ACIT 4 (1), INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16 Pumarth Credit Capital Ltd. Acit-4(1), 28/29, Vimla Mahal, Indore 755, Peddar Road, बनाम/ Opp. Jaslok Hospital, Vs. Mumbai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aabcp8823E Assessee By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari Adv. Revenue By Shri Sanjiv Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.03.2025

151 (1) of the Act 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice issued under section 148 by the AO is illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction and barred by time limitation, hence, the reassessment order dated 27/03/2022 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre is also illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 4. That

DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

disallowed by the Ld. AO in the assessment order wherein he held that the assessee is merely executing government contract in the capacity of a work contractor and not developer. AO further observed that no risk is undertaken by the assessee and therefore, it cannot be termed as developer as envisaged u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. In the appellate

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

disallowed by the Ld. AO in the assessment order wherein he held that the assessee is merely executing government contract in the capacity of a work contractor and not developer. AO further observed that no risk is undertaken by the assessee and therefore, it cannot be termed as developer as envisaged u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. In the appellate

SHRI DILIP BUILDCON LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

disallowed by the Ld. AO in the assessment order wherein he held that the assessee is merely executing government contract in the capacity of a work contractor and not developer. AO further observed that no risk is undertaken by the assessee and therefore, it cannot be termed as developer as envisaged u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. In the appellate

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

disallowed by the Ld. AO in the assessment order wherein he held that the assessee is merely executing government contract in the capacity of a work contractor and not developer. AO further observed that no risk is undertaken by the assessee and therefore, it cannot be termed as developer as envisaged u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. In the appellate