INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. AGROH TOLL HIGHWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiincome Tax Agroh Toll Highways Private बनाम/ Officer-1(1), Limited Vs. Indore Floor No.104, Krishna Harmony, 14/2 New Palasia, Indore, Indore (Pan:Aalca2341L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.03.2026 Date Of 27.03.2026 Pronouncement आदेश/ O R D E R

disallowed the deduction under section 801A merely on a ground that the audit report was furnished after due date by the appellant. 5.5 Further, the appellant has submitted that furnishing of the auditors' report along with the return be treated as a procedural provision, and the exemption shall not be denied merely on the ground that the audit report

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold and silver

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold and silver

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold and silver

JAI PRAKASH SHAHANI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradjai Prakashshahani, Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S Jai Prakash Impex, Nfac, Delhi Vs. 73, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Apqps7948G Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025

207 (Delhi) stating that disallowing part of the purchases u/s 37 is wrong when the remaining purchase transactions from the very same party are accepted as genuine. She submitted that the books of accounts have not been rejected 5 Jai PrakashShahani– A.Y 2014-15 and no discrepancy has been noticed in the books of accounts during reassessment proceedings and therefore

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

207 Less: a) Deductions u/s 80-C 1,00,000 b) Deductions u/s 80-G 20,500 (-) 1,20,500 Total Income 3,17,71,707/- Rounded off 3,17,71,700/- Income assessee under 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

AMIT ASHOK AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-2(2), INDORE

In the result, the quantum appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and penalty appeal of assesse is allowed

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

disallowed the entire amount as income from undisclosed sources under section 68 of the income tax act. 6.4. The appellant has now submitted that it has received business income and transfers from other banks of self. However, the appellant was not able to prove the same on the basis of cashbook and details of cash sales, etc. The remand report

AMIT ASHOK AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-2(2), INDORE

In the result, the quantum appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and penalty appeal of assesse is allowed

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

disallowed the entire amount as income from undisclosed sources under section 68 of the income tax act. 6.4. The appellant has now submitted that it has received business income and transfers from other banks of self. However, the appellant was not able to prove the same on the basis of cashbook and details of cash sales, etc. The remand report

M/S NIKHIL ESTATE P LTD,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE (3) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Nikhil Estate Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Central)-3 M-102, Mezzanine, Floor, Indore Dhan Trident, P. No.B-3 Pu- Vs. 4, Sch. No.54, Vijay Nagar Square, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 8056 D Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.06.2023

disallowance made by the AO u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE is unlawful. Further, the amended provisions of section 115BBE are applicable from 01.04.2017 and not from the date of search. 4.1.2 I have considered the entire matrix of the case, various case law cited by the appellant and also perused assessment order. It is undisputed fact that during the course

M/S SUPREMO INDIA LTD ,INDORE vs. THE AIT CENTRAL 3, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

disallowance made by the AO u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE is unlawful. Further, the amended provisions of section 115BBE are applicable from 01.04.2017 and not from the date of search. 4.1.2 I have considered the entire matrix of the case, various case law cited by the appellant and also perused assessment order. It is undisputed fact that during the course

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

section 263( I) of I.T. Act which is reproduced here below may also be kept in mind for guidance by the AO while passing the fresh assessment order pursuant to this order u/s 263. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the following written 7 ITANo.742/Ind/2018 submissions and various judgments and decisions contending that necessary enquiry was conducted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE vs. COMMANDER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

disallowance of claim of depreciation on goodwill as a result of amalgamation/merger should not be made. The assessee filed its reply dated 30.03.2022. The AO noted that the assessee has claimed depreciation @25% of intangible asset of Rs.29,21,05,207/- shown as goodwill representing the payment over and above the net book value of assets of four amalgamating companies

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

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 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

THED CIT ,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S 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

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