TORINO LABORATORIES P LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT/ / ACIT 4 (1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Torino Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Dcit/Acit-4(1), Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabct1347B Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2022 O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

section 36(1)(va) has not application. The Ld. DR agreed to the submission of Ld. AR. Thus, the entire disallowance of Rs. 1,89,194

THE DCIT, 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S MITTAL CORP. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue stand

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

194/- holding that the loans were DCIT vs. M/s Mittal Corporation ITA Nos.480 660/Ind/2013 obtained as per commercial expediency because the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) envisages that the borrowed funds should wholly and exclusively be utilised for business purpose. (iv) It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT(A) may be set aside and the order

THE DCIT, 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. MITTAL CORPORATION LTD., PITHAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue stand

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

194/- holding that the loans were DCIT vs. M/s Mittal Corporation ITA Nos.480 660/Ind/2013 obtained as per commercial expediency because the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) envisages that the borrowed funds should wholly and exclusively be utilised for business purpose. (iv) It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT(A) may be set aside and the order

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

The appeal of the assesse is disposed off in terms of

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

section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. The Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Sky Builders & Developers reported in 14 taxmann.78 held that where the assessee sold plots to respective customers by registering sale deed and thereafter constructed the building at an agreed price, it has to be concluded that the assessee merely worked

THE ITO-1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S FRIENDS ASSOCIATES, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniito-1(1) M/S Friends Associates Bhopal Shop No.32, G.T.B. Complex New Market, Vs. Bhopal

194-1; (vi) "royalty" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub- section (1) of section 9, 4.4 In this regard, the amendment was brought by the Finance Act (No. 2) 2014 effective from 1-4- 2015 whereas the year before us relates to the assessment year 2012-13. The Finance Act, 2014 brought

SHRI ANIL KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-5(3), INDORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act at Rs.22,19,660/- for non deduction of tax at source u/s 194C of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was not deducting tax at source u/s 194C of the Act on account of second 2 Anil Khandelwal proviso to Section 194

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

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act whereas the SCN under section 263 was regarding the FIFO method of valuation of closing stock adopted by the Assessee. These were, as rightly noted by the ITAT, unconnected issues and the assessment order could not have been held to be "erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue" when

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1) , BHOPAL vs. M/S. SOM DISTILLERIES & BREWERIES LTD., BHOPAL

In the result Ground No.2 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Pan : Aabcs3374B

section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective in nature is accepted"? The appellant reserves his right to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal on or before the date, 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of beer & bottling of Indian Made Foreign

M/S. SOM DISTILLERIES & BREWERIES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result Ground No.2 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Pan : Aabcs3374B

section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective in nature is accepted"? The appellant reserves his right to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal on or before the date, 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of beer & bottling of Indian Made Foreign

ACIT (CENTRAL UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S ARIHANT FUTURE AND COMMODITIES LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

section 36(2)(i) is that such debt or part thereof has been taken into consideration in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which the amount of such debt or part thereof is written off or of an earlier previous year. I find that the appellant has duly met this requirement as well and also

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-UJJAIN, INDORE vs. M/S ARIHANT CAPITALS MARKETS LTD , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

section 36(2)(i) is that such debt or part thereof has been taken into consideration in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which the amount of such debt or part thereof is written off or of an earlier previous year. I find that the appellant has duly met this requirement as well and also

THE ACIT, CENTRAL - UJJAIN, INDORE vs. M/S ARIHANT FUTURE & COMMADITIES LTD , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

section 36(2)(i) is that such debt or part thereof has been taken into consideration in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which the amount of such debt or part thereof is written off or of an earlier previous year. I find that the appellant has duly met this requirement as well and also

THE ACIT , RATLAM vs. SHRI KAPIL JAIN, RATLAM

In the result appeal of the revenue No

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

disallowance of credit of AMT paid in the A.Y.2013-14 amounting to Rs.18,37,194/-. As per the provision of section

THE ACIT , RATLAM vs. SHRI KAPIL JAIN, RATLAM

In the result appeal of the revenue No

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

disallowance of credit of AMT paid in the A.Y.2013-14 amounting to Rs.18,37,194/-. As per the provision of section

THE ACIT , RATLAM vs. SHRI KAPIL JAIN, RATLAM

In the result appeal of the revenue No

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

disallowance of credit of AMT paid in the A.Y.2013-14 amounting to Rs.18,37,194/-. As per the provision of section

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

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS ,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

section 80-IB(10), the entirety of project including development of infrastructure must be undertaken by assessee. According to Ld. DR, ‘entire project’ would mean development as a cohesive unit which includes the construction of houses with development of essential amenities. In the case of assessee, the buyers have first acquired ownership of plots from assessee through registered Sale-Deeds

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

194 Taxman 57 – order pronounced on 16.08.2010 – HEAD NOTE – “Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue - Assessment year 1982-83 - Whether for exercising power under section 263, it is a prerequisite that Commissioner must give reasons to justify exercise of suo motu revisional powers by him to reopen a concluded assessment