RAMESH ANAND,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Ramesh Anand Ito, 4(1), C/O G.J. Shah & Co., 416, बनाम/ Manas Bhawan Main, 11, Indore Vs. Rnt Marg, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aeapa1661F Appellant By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri K.C. Selvamni Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.11.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Ii, Indore, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Dated 16.11.2017 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On Ramesh Anand

disallowance - Interest etc. paid to a resident without deduction of tax at source (Second Proviso) - Assessment year 2006-07 -Whether insertion section proviso to section 40(a)(ia) with effect from 01.04.2013 is declaratory and curative in section 40(a) (ia) with effect from 01.04.2013 is declaratory and curative in nature and has retrospective from 01.04.2005, being date from which

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

211 hammals and has paid salary as per seized register. The salary paid in few months is in excess of Rs. 20,000/- which has subsequently been disallowed by the Ld. AO by invoking provisions of section

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

211 hammals and has paid salary as per seized register. The salary paid in few months is in excess of Rs. 20,000/- which has subsequently been disallowed by the Ld. AO by invoking provisions of section

MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. ACIT- (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

211 hammals and has paid salary as per seized register. The salary paid in few months is in excess of Rs. 20,000/- which has subsequently been disallowed by the Ld. AO by invoking provisions of section

M/S NMI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11 M/S. Nmi Industries Pvt. Ito-4(1) Ltd, Vs. Indore 314 Bhagirathpura, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aabcn9571B Assessment Year 2010-2011

disallowance of selling and administrative expenses on ad-hoc basis at Rs.5,00,000/- by Ld.A.O. In the result Ground No.1 is dismissed. 7. As regards Ground No.2, Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the audited balance sheet submitted that the sundry balance written off were unsecured loans which were not payable and are being in the nature

THE ACIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. NMI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11 M/S. Nmi Industries Pvt. Ito-4(1) Ltd, Vs. Indore 314 Bhagirathpura, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aabcn9571B Assessment Year 2010-2011

disallowance of selling and administrative expenses on ad-hoc basis at Rs.5,00,000/- by Ld.A.O. In the result Ground No.1 is dismissed. 7. As regards Ground No.2, Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the audited balance sheet submitted that the sundry balance written off were unsecured loans which were not payable and are being in the nature

SOM DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Som Distilleries & Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Breweries Limited, 1(1), Vs. Som House, Bhopal. 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay:2014-15 Acit (Central)-1, Som Distilleries & बनाम/ Bhopal Breweries Limited, Vs. Som House, 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

section 250(2)(b) of the Act and in response to his notice, the AO failed to submit any report. Further, in absence of any specific request from the AO, the CIT(A) presumed that the AO did not want to attend the hearings. Thus, when the case involved hefty additions and the AO considered his additions on sound footing

ACIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LTD., BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Som Distilleries & Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Breweries Limited, 1(1), Vs. Som House, Bhopal. 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay:2014-15 Acit (Central)-1, Som Distilleries & बनाम/ Bhopal Breweries Limited, Vs. Som House, 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

section 250(2)(b) of the Act and in response to his notice, the AO failed to submit any report. Further, in absence of any specific request from the AO, the CIT(A) presumed that the AO did not want to attend the hearings. Thus, when the case involved hefty additions and the AO considered his additions on sound footing

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

Section 263 of the Act. In such matters, to remand the matter/issue to the Assessing Officer would imply and mean the CIT has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed the Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question. 17. This distinction must be kept in mind by the CIT while exercising jurisdiction under Section

SHRI VARAD MEHTA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Shri Varad Mehta, Dcit 1(1), B-4/301, Paras City, Vs. Bhopal Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aflpm6733Q Revenue By Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Girish Agrawal,Ca Date Of Hearing 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2018 O R D E R

disallowed in returned income cannot be held to be retrospective in operation - Held, yes _ Whether fiction created under sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C by itself, cannot be extended to penalty proceedings to raise a presumption about concealment of such income - Held, yes - Whether on a finding that return of income which is less than 80 per cent

SRK DEV BUILD PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

disallowances and thereby invoking section 271(1)(c). Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has disclosed complete and accurate particulars of the claims of depreciation and interest expenses and it is not a case of AO that the assessee has supplied any incorrect or erroneous or false detail in the return or during assessment-proceeding. Therefore, in such a situation

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

MR.VINEET SHRIVASTAVA,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( IT&TP), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimr. Vineet Shrivastava Ito (It & Tp) E-7/795, Arera Colony Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bcxps 2544 H Assessee By Shri Rohit Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2023

211 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. 2. We have heard Ld. AR as well as Ld. DR on the condonation of delay. The Ld. AR has submitted that the impugned assessment order has been passed by the AO without giving effect to the directions of the DRP dated

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

section 263(1). ..........rompton Greaves Ltd. [2017] 82 taxmann.com 246 [Mumbai-ITAT ...........C) .......that on perusal of the said assessment order it was clear that the Assessing ........had not made any enquiry with respect to the claim of deduction of the assessee-company with respect to provisions for warranty charges, excise duty, .......tax and liquidity damages amounting to Rs.17.72 crores

THE ACIT CIRCLE,RATLAM vs. M/S. MAHALAXMI INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD., RATLAM

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

disallowing the claim of the appellant u/s 80IB of the I.T. Act. The appellant has claimed the deduction u/s 801B as 'per the return of income filed originally. The claim u/s 80IB was supported by audit report filed along with the return of income. The claim of the appellant has been examined in terms of section 80IB

THE ACIT, CIRCLE, RATLAM vs. M/S. MAHALAXMI INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD., RATLAM

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

disallowing the claim of the appellant u/s 80IB of the I.T. Act. The appellant has claimed the deduction u/s 801B as 'per the return of income filed originally. The claim u/s 80IB was supported by audit report filed along with the return of income. The claim of the appellant has been examined in terms of section 80IB

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RATLAM vs. SHRI SURESH CHAND JAIN, MEGHNAGAR DIST. JHABUA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & Acit 5(1) Shri Suresh Chand Jain Indore 99, Thandla Road, Vs. Meghnagar,Jhabua (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan:Aezpj 2697F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .09.2023

section 194C are not applicable. Accordingly we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) qua this issue. 9. Ground no.4 is regarding the disallowance of interest from loan to relatives. 9.1 Ld. DR has submitted that the assesse has given interest free loan/advances of Rs.76,93,211

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RATLAM, RATLAM vs. SHRI SURESH CHAND JAIN, JHABUA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & Acit 5(1) Shri Suresh Chand Jain Indore 99, Thandla Road, Vs. Meghnagar,Jhabua (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan:Aezpj 2697F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .09.2023

section 194C are not applicable. Accordingly we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) qua this issue. 9. Ground no.4 is regarding the disallowance of interest from loan to relatives. 9.1 Ld. DR has submitted that the assesse has given interest free loan/advances of Rs.76,93,211