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

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

RNG CONSTRUCTION CO.,INDIRA NAGAR vs. DCIT, DCIT-CPC

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshirng Construction Co. Dcit बनाम/ 14, Sector-A, Vs. Indira Nagar, Mandideep (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqfr9084B Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025

172 taxmann.com 611 (Delhi – Trib.) order dated 27.01.2025: “3.1 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that no adjustment can be made u/s 143(1) of the Act when issue is debatable. The disallowance made u/s 43B of the Act on account of GST payable is not a prima facie adjustment; rather the same is a debatable issue since

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

172 Sharma 882 8 Nirmal 1725 6,82,500 187- 60,375 2,93,250 170 228 Rajendra 188 Tiwari 986 9 Anil Malik 2100 4,00,000 200 73,500 3,26,500 155.48 228 391 10 Amit 2100 2,45,000 43 73,500 1,71,500 81.67 228 Shantilal 216 345 Total

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

172 Sharma 882 8 Nirmal 1725 6,82,500 187- 60,375 2,93,250 170 228 Rajendra 188 Tiwari 986 9 Anil Malik 2100 4,00,000 200 73,500 3,26,500 155.48 228 391 10 Amit 2100 2,45,000 43 73,500 1,71,500 81.67 228 Shantilal 216 345 Total

M/S. FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD.,DHAR vs. DY. CIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2012-13

4 of section 271 of the Act with prospective effect, it is now a settled position that prior to 1/4/2016, where the income tax payable on the total income as computed under the normal provisions of the Act is less Flexituff International Ltd. ITANo.512/Ind/2019 than the tax payable on the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act, then penalty under

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

4)(a) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957. Nevertheless it negated and rejected the argument that data for one year should be taken into consideration. It was observed that data for block period for five years may and should be taken into consideration. It was held as under: ―It cannot be gainsaid that the municipal general tax is an annual

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

4)(a) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957. Nevertheless it negated and rejected the argument that data for one year should be taken into consideration. It was observed that data for block period for five years may and should be taken into consideration. It was held as under: ―It cannot be gainsaid that the municipal general tax is an annual

M/S M.P. MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

4)(a) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957. Nevertheless it negated and rejected the argument that data for one year should be taken into consideration. It was observed that data for block period for five years may and should be taken into consideration. It was held as under: ―It cannot be gainsaid that the municipal general tax is an annual

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

4)(a) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957. Nevertheless it negated and rejected the argument that data for one year should be taken into consideration. It was observed that data for block period for five years may and should be taken into consideration. It was held as under: ―It cannot be gainsaid that the municipal general tax is an annual

JYOTI GOYAL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed as mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Jyoti Goyal, Dcit, 18, Shyamla Hills, 1(1), बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abbpg3493P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

disallowance of addition of Rs. 15,50,000/- towards cash received by assessee treating the same on unexplained cash.” 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed her return for AY 2012-13 on 31.07.2012 declaring a total income of Rs. 8,06,570/- which was duly assessed. Subequently, the AO re-opened

THE DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL vs. M/S. INDORE EDUCATION AND SERVICE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13

4..7 Duties and Responsibilities of Assessing Authorities under the Income Tax Act,1961 The Board of Revenue (now CBDT) issued Circular (No. 14 (XL – 35 dated 11th April 1955 detailing duty on the assessing authorities to make correct assessments and collect correct taxes. Let us examine the legal validity and legal status of the Circular issued by the Board

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

172 TTJ 721 (KOL) has..........virtually the whole law on 263. It has answered following questions most clarity; Q. Whether the enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer in such cases can be as a proper enquriy ? A. Though the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 133(6) but it failed to comprehend the rationale or logic behind.............., nor to examine

THE ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. M/S. SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by the Revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13

4 of the assessment order the advances received for flat booking as ‘Name of Creditors’. The amount reflected in the Balance Sheet relates to advances for booking of flats and these parties are not creditors. Ld. AO treated these advances received from various customers for flat booking as trading liability as per the provisions of section

DECENT INDUSTRIES P. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Decent Industries Ito-1(2), Private Ltd, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Corporate Park, बनाम/ Db City Area Hills, Vs. Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeca6271G Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta & Shri N.K. Gupta Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

disallowance of expenses u/s 14A. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and made detailed Page 3 of 44 M/s Decent Industries Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 356/Ind/2023 – AY 2012-13 submissions but did not get any success. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 3. The grounds raised by assessee are as under

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

disallowing the said claim render the assessment order is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. You are, therefore) required to show cause why provisions of section 263 be not invoked in your case for the reasons mentioned above as the order of AO dated 27-12- 2016 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest

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

disallowance, cannot be lost sight of, equally, such a requirement has to be viewed in the context and circumstances of each given case. In the present case, it was repeatedly emphasized that the assessee’s dividend income was confined to what it received from investment made in a sister concern, and that only one dividend warrant was received. These facts

ANDRITZ HYDRO P LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing

4 Andritz Hydro Private Ltd. ITANo.198 & 199/Ind/2020 assessment order assessing total loss at Rs.77,42,44,939/-. On 16 January 2020, the Ld. PCIT issued a notice under section 263 alleging that the AO’s acceptance of such treatment is erroneous and is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Ld. PCIT drew this conclusion based on a reporting