RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

246 or section 246A or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition

M/S. DIASPARK INFOTECH PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE NFAC ,NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & T.R. Senthil Kumar

disallowance. Therefore, the assessee filed a rectification application under section 154 of the Act, however, after lapse of considerable time, rectification petition was not disposed of by the Department, and ultimately, the assessee-company filed statutory appeal under section 246

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

KAILASHCHANDRA KHANDELWAL,SENDHWA vs. PR. CIT -2, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Kailash Khandelwal Pr. Cit-2, Prop. M/S. Vikash Krishi Indore बनाम/ Seva Kendra, Bus Stand, Vs. Sendhwa, Barwani (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Acmpk2991E Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Vijay Bansal, Nisha Lahoti, Ars Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

disallowance cannot be made on hypothetical basis. [PB 04-82, 83-116, 117-138, 145-150] 9. Ld. AO has conducted proper enquiry to verify the transactions relating to unsecured loans, loans and advances made and the interest thereon. Ld. Pr. CIT has not pointed out any specific shortcoming in the verification conducted by Ld. AO so that the assessment

GOPAL MUWEL,MANAWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAR

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

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshigopal Muwel, Ito बनाम/ Morad, Manawar, Dhar Vs. Dhar (Pan: Caapm6256Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Lucky Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

section 56(2)(ii) is reproduced (ii) Assessee has not offered the rental income under business head. The same is offered under the head “Other sources” (iii) For the preceeding years assessee has shown income from renting of JCB’s under “other sources”. (iv) Assessee though may not be required to maintain books of accounts for business head

THE ACIT CENTRAL-UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S ITALIAN EDIBLES P LTD, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central) M/S. Italian Edibles Pvt. Ujjain Ltd. Vs. Udhyog Nagar, Palda Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee /Respondent) Pan: Aacci 2746N Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb Ars Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023

246, Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh has treated unaccounted debtors as business income and therefore, provisions of section 69/69A/69B/69C of the Act could not be applicable. Similarly, these provisions would not be applicable to undisclosed gross profit on sales outside the books of account as it relates to business of the assessee. On other hand, Hon'ble tribunal has treated unaccounted

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

SHRI 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 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

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

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

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

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

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

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

disallowance u/s 80IA. During the year, the appellant has constructed roads at various places in M.P. under contracts received from Executive Engineer, PWD, Mandaleshwar, Shajapur, Raisen, and Chhindwara, M.P.R.R.D.A., Maheshwar, and MPRRDA, Sehore. A perusal of relevant bidding documents, letter of acceptance, notice inviting tender, notice to proceed the work etc. shows as follows:- (i) Detailed notice inviting tender

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

disallowance u/s 80IA. During the year, the appellant has constructed roads at various places in M.P. under contracts received from Executive Engineer, PWD, Mandaleshwar, Shajapur, Raisen, and Chhindwara, M.P.R.R.D.A., Maheshwar, and MPRRDA, Sehore. A perusal of relevant bidding documents, letter of acceptance, notice inviting tender, notice to proceed the work etc. shows as follows:- (i) Detailed notice inviting tender

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

disallowance u/s 80IA. During the year, the appellant has constructed roads at various places in M.P. under contracts received from Executive Engineer, PWD, Mandaleshwar, Shajapur, Raisen, and Chhindwara, M.P.R.R.D.A., Maheshwar, and MPRRDA, Sehore. A perusal of relevant bidding documents, letter of acceptance, notice inviting tender, notice to proceed the work etc. shows as follows:- (i) Detailed notice inviting tender