THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance of the amount deducted by PWD is not sustainable and, thus, deleted. We thus set aside the findings of Ld. CIT(A) on this count. Hence, assessee’s cross objection is allowed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed whereas cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed. ITA No.217/Ind/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 16 Surya Infraventure

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance of the amount deducted by PWD is not sustainable and, thus, deleted. We thus set aside the findings of Ld. CIT(A) on this count. Hence, assessee’s cross objection is allowed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed whereas cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed. ITA No.217/Ind/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 16 Surya Infraventure

BHARAT SHAH,INDORE vs. THE ITO3(4), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance of Section 54F exemption 1. Absence of registration deed should not affect exemption under Section 54F •The benefit to be availed under Section 54F stipulates the purchase or construction of a new house property. It is immaterial if such purchase has been evidenced by a registered deed or not. Merely on account of absence of registered sale deed

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

245 ITR 160 has held that (Refer para 3 to 6):- “3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Section 68 of the Act of 1961 says that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance of 5% by making general remarks cannot be said to be justified as has been rightly pointed out by the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting addition without any ambiguity so as to warrant interference. This ground of appeal is, therefore, found to be devoid of any merit and thus dismissed. 18. Ground No.3: Deletion of addition of Rs.5

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance of 5% by making general remarks cannot be said to be justified as has been rightly pointed out by the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting addition without any ambiguity so as to warrant interference. This ground of appeal is, therefore, found to be devoid of any merit and thus dismissed. 18. Ground No.3: Deletion of addition of Rs.5

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance of 5% by making general remarks cannot be said to be justified as has been rightly pointed out by the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting addition without any ambiguity so as to warrant interference. This ground of appeal is, therefore, found to be devoid of any merit and thus dismissed. 18. Ground No.3: Deletion of addition of Rs.5

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act even though the first proviso of section 201(1) of the IT Act was inserted w.e.f. 01/07/2012 whereas the relevant A.Y. in the case of the assessee is A. Y. 2010-11 and also the assessee has not produced the certificate from C.A in prescribed proforma as envisaged in provision

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 -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

disallowance of development expenditure by AO was for it’s being contingent in nature. But the CIT (A) has failed to adjudicate and decide whether the AO was correct in his conclusion. Para 3.13:- The CIT (A), has stated that none of the customers has admitted of having paid any amount over and above what was recorded in the books

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

disallowance of development expenditure by AO was for it’s being contingent in nature. But the CIT (A) has failed to adjudicate and decide whether the AO was correct in his conclusion. Para 3.13:- The CIT (A), has stated that none of the customers has admitted of having paid any amount over and above what was recorded in the books

M/S LAXMINARAYAN ASSOCIATESBHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 3(2), BHOPAL

In the result, Quantum appeal is partly allowed and penalty appeal is allowed

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

245) paid to Shri Om Prakash Goyal as salary is disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee firm. Addition: Rs. 4,47,402/- 8.1 Thus, the Ld. AO has given reasons for disallowance that Shri Om Prakash Goyal has been appointed as a partner from 11.01.2017 but has drawn more salary in comparison to the other partners

M/S LAXMINARAYAN ASSOCIATESBHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 3(2), BHOPAL

In the result, Quantum appeal is partly allowed and penalty appeal is allowed

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

245) paid to Shri Om Prakash Goyal as salary is disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee firm. Addition: Rs. 4,47,402/- 8.1 Thus, the Ld. AO has given reasons for disallowance that Shri Om Prakash Goyal has been appointed as a partner from 11.01.2017 but has drawn more salary in comparison to the other partners

T LOGIKS,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3 (1), INDORE

In the result, the impugned order is set aside as & by way of\nremand back to the file of the Ld

section 245 M means more than formally filling it but\neffectively pursuing it.\nIn view of the above judicial pronouncements coupled\nwith the fact that the appellant has not pursued the Appeal,\nI am left with no option but to complete the appeal\nproceedings based on documentary evidences available on\nrecord.\nGrounds 1 to 8: During the appeal proceedings, Grounds

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

GOVARDHAN TAYAL,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

245-247/Ind/2019 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM:- The bunch of appeals filed by the assessee(s) are directed against the separate orders of different dates passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-II, Indore u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) confirming the addition made

SHRI GOPAL TAYAL,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

245-247/Ind/2019 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM:- The bunch of appeals filed by the assessee(s) are directed against the separate orders of different dates passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-II, Indore u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) confirming the addition made

SHRI VRINDAVAN TAYAL,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

245-247/Ind/2019 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM:- The bunch of appeals filed by the assessee(s) are directed against the separate orders of different dates passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-II, Indore u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) confirming the addition made