M/S AGARWAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,BHOPAL vs. DYPTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

disallowance made u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act by the lower authorities was deleted and assessee’s claim u/s 80IB(10) of the Act was allowed by this Tribunal after examining the facts of the case and also following the settled judicial pronouncements. Relevant extract of the order of this Tribunal are reproduced below: 12. We have heard both

M/S SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEEMUCH vs. THE DCIT, RATLAM

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Disallowance of Rs.55,44,563/- was added to the total income of the assessee under Section 80IA of the Act. In appeal the same was confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, the instant appeal before us. 7. The case of the assessee is this that the assessee is engaged in the development of infrastructure facilities in the shape

M/S SHRI BALAJI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ,NEEMUCH vs. DCIT, RATLAM

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Disallowance of Rs.55,44,563/- was added to the total income of the assessee under Section 80IA of the Act. In appeal the same was confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, the instant appeal before us. 7. The case of the assessee is this that the assessee is engaged in the development of infrastructure facilities in the shape

THE DCIT CIRCLE 5(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S L N MALVIYA INFRA PROJECTS P LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit, Circle 5(1) M/S. L.N. Malviya Infra Projects Bhopal Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.29, F/F Sector, Dwarka Vs. New Delhi

239 ITR 435 (Madras High Court): The Hon’ble High Court held thus: “8. The liability for deduction of tax arises by reason of the provisions of the Act. Under Section 201, the consequence of failure to comply with the same renders that person liable to be deemed as an assessee in default with all the consequences attached thereto

M/S. SURESH ALUMINIUM,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHOPAL

In the result Ground No.1 & 2 raised by the

Bench: Shri Manish Boradm/S Suresh Aluminium, Acit Central Circle-1, 10, Jyoti Shoping Compex, Bhopal Zone-I, Vs. Mp Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abefs0206M Assessee By S/Shri Yash Kukreja & H. Chimnani, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.08.2024 O R D E R

disallowance of Rs.3912/- Ld. A.O assessed the income at Rs.33,94,220/- and applied the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act so as to calculate the tax on surrendered income at Rs.52,25,297/-. 3.1 Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and made detailed submission referring to plethora of decisions claiming that the surrendered income is purely

AABHUSHAN,DHAMNOD, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO DHAR, DHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaabhushan Dhamnod Ito, Dhar 1St Floor, Ganpati Market Ab Road Dhamnod Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abgfa0812K Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & Shri S.N. Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024 O R D E R

239 (All). 22. The Rajasthan High Court in CIT Vs. Kewal Krishna and Partners [2009] 18 DTR 121 (Raj) has also taken similar view." 27. Section 68 requires the Assessing Officer to satisfy itself of the source of the credit and if during the course of enquiry undertaken, the entries are found to be not genuine then the sum represented

RNG CONSTRUCTION CO,INDRA NAGAR vs. DCIT-CPC, CPC-BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshirng Construction Co. Dcit-Cpc 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

disallowance on account of Service Tax is required to be confirmed, the same should be allowed in subsequent years being Rs. 5,97,097/- in AY 2019-20 and Rs. 60,42,613/- in Page 3 of 9 RNG Construction Co. ITA No.162/Ind/2024- AY:2018-19 AY 2021-22 on the basis of payments, as these were never claimed

M/S BHOPAL DUGDH SANGH SAHAKARI MY.DAIRY PLANT, BHOPAL vs. DCIT -1 (1) ,BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani

239 ITR 435 (Madras High Court): The Hon’ble High Court held thus: “8. The liability for deduction of tax arises by reason of the provisions of the Act. Under Section 201, the consequence of failure to comply with the same renders that person liable to be deemed as an assessee in default with all the consequences attached thereto

DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S MAA UMIYA AGRITECH PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit 1(1) M/S. Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Indore 119, A.B. Road, Aloo Pyaj Mandi, Vs. Indore (Appellant / (Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn8230F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

disallowances were were proposed books of account cannot be rejected u/s 145. 14.2 The AO seems to have carried away with the order passed u/s 144 though audited books of account and supporting were thoroughly examined yet the ground of rejection of books of account was maintained. The reason was also not explained

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

239\nITR 161 (Guj.)\nHeld, \" that there was no material brought on\nrecord to establish that purchases or expenses\nwere inflated or sales suppressed, the Tribunal\nwas fully justified in coming to the conclusion that\nthe provisions of section 145(2) could not be\ninvoked,".\nCIT vs. Anand Kumar\nModi (2015) 2 ITJ\nOnline 668\n(Jharkhand)\nHeld that “addition

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

section would apply in this case. 6. In the circumstances, it is unnecessary to consider the question whether a proceeding under s. 147(a) could be converted into a proceeding under s. 147(b) in the course of the proceedings without issuing a fresh notice and initiation of a fresh proceeding. The order of the LD. AO reopening the earlier

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

section would apply in this case. 6. In the circumstances, it is unnecessary to consider the question whether a proceeding under s. 147(a) could be converted into a proceeding under s. 147(b) in the course of the proceedings without issuing a fresh notice and initiation of a fresh proceeding. The order of the LD. AO reopening the earlier

MAHENDRA SINGH CHAWLA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

disallowed the entire indexed cost of the house sold of Rs. 986560 for which no Page 14 of 21 ITANo.245/Ind/2024 Mahendra Singh Chawla reason has been mentioned except for the improvement cost of Rs. 115000 as mentioned above. In this regard it is submitted as under: The appellant in the year 1994-95 had purchased a house

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

Appeal is allowed

disallowance\nof expenses/loss or increase in income, the assessee would have certainly\ngone in first-appeal and challenged the legality of original/re-assessment\nproceeding also. But in present case, the assessee had no necessity or\noccasion to challenge the illegality of original/re-assessment proceeding.\nHowever, since the PCIT has taken revisionary action u/s 263, set aside\nAO's order and given direction