M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

251 ITR 9(SC), wherein the Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Hon 'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court CIT in the case of Suresh Chandra Mittal [2000] 241 ITR 124 (MP), where in similar < circumstances it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished

PREM CHAWLA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

disallowance of purchase, freight and cartage, wages and salary and salary expenses challenged before us in the ground mentioned in para 14. In the result respective grounds are partly allowed as per terms indicated above.” 2.11 The above premises drawn up by us deals with quantum assessment proceedings. 2.12 In so far as penalty proceedings u/s 271(1

PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

disallowance of purchase, freight and cartage, wages and salary and salary expenses challenged before us in the ground mentioned in para 14. In the result respective grounds are partly allowed as per terms indicated above.” 2.11 The above premises drawn up by us deals with quantum assessment proceedings. 2.12 In so far as penalty proceedings u/s 271(1

PREM CHAWLA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

disallowance of purchase, freight and cartage, wages and salary and salary expenses challenged before us in the ground mentioned in para 14. In the result respective grounds are partly allowed as per terms indicated above.” 2.11 The above premises drawn up by us deals with quantum assessment proceedings. 2.12 In so far as penalty proceedings u/s 271(1

PREM CHAWLA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

disallowance of purchase, freight and cartage, wages and salary and salary expenses challenged before us in the ground mentioned in para 14. In the result respective grounds are partly allowed as per terms indicated above.” 2.11 The above premises drawn up by us deals with quantum assessment proceedings. 2.12 In so far as penalty proceedings u/s 271(1

THE DCIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. KALYAN TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

251 ITR 9, herein it was held that where the assessee filed revised return showing higher income 27 Keti Construction (India) Ltd & Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd. ITA Nos. 877 & 878/Ind/2019 after search and notice for reopening of assessment and the department simply rested its conclusions on the action of surrender made by the assessee, no penalty u/s 271(1

THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE vs. M/S KETI CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) LTD. , INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

251 ITR 9, herein it was held that where the assessee filed revised return showing higher income 27 Keti Construction (India) Ltd & Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd. ITA Nos. 877 & 878/Ind/2019 after search and notice for reopening of assessment and the department simply rested its conclusions on the action of surrender made by the assessee, no penalty u/s 271(1

SHRI NARAYAN DAS TOLANI,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

1), Bhopal I.T.A.No. 834/Ind/2016 A.Y.2007-08 “Section 251, read with section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Commissioner (Appeals) - Powers of (Subject matter of appeal) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld disallowance

M/S. STI (INDIA) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Disallowance on account of prior year expenses Rs. 3,91,610/- Total Rs. 1847021/- 11. We will first take up the legal issue through which Ld. counsel for the assessee has challenged the validity of the notice u/s 274 r.w. section 271(1)(c) of the Act by pleading that the Ld. Assessing Officer while issuing the impugned notice should

MS MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2 (1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

1, the Ld. AO has categorically analysed the deduction under the heading “Claim of deduction as per section 80IC” and allowed deduction. 9. This way, the Ld. AR claimed that the assessee had been claiming the same deduction over the years on the same set of facts and there is no change in the activity of assessee, despite such admitted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5 1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

1, the Ld. AO has categorically analysed the deduction under the heading “Claim of deduction as per section 80IC” and allowed deduction. 9. This way, the Ld. AR claimed that the assessee had been claiming the same deduction over the years on the same set of facts and there is no change in the activity of assessee, despite such admitted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -5(1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT. LTD., BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

1, the Ld. AO has categorically analysed the deduction under the heading “Claim of deduction as per section 80IC” and allowed deduction. 9. This way, the Ld. AR claimed that the assessee had been claiming the same deduction over the years on the same set of facts and there is no change in the activity of assessee, despite such admitted

MS MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2 (1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

1, the Ld. AO has categorically analysed the deduction under the heading “Claim of deduction as per section 80IC” and allowed deduction. 9. This way, the Ld. AR claimed that the assessee had been claiming the same deduction over the years on the same set of facts and there is no change in the activity of assessee, despite such admitted

MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD ,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT -2- (1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

1, the Ld. AO has categorically analysed the deduction under the heading “Claim of deduction as per section 80IC” and allowed deduction. 9. This way, the Ld. AR claimed that the assessee had been claiming the same deduction over the years on the same set of facts and there is no change in the activity of assessee, despite such admitted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 5(1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

1, the Ld. AO has categorically analysed the deduction under the heading “Claim of deduction as per section 80IC” and allowed deduction. 9. This way, the Ld. AR claimed that the assessee had been claiming the same deduction over the years on the same set of facts and there is no change in the activity of assessee, despite such admitted

DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KALYAN TOLL HIGHWAY PVT.LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit(Central)-2 M/S. Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt. Ltd. Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadck9401F Appellant By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

disallowed and there is no impact on the income of this year on account of any adjustment on this issue. Therefore, penalty uls 271(1)(c) ought not to have been levied by the AO in respect of the inflated project cost of Rs. 1,83,32,0381- in this year. 5.1.5 It is also seen that the impugned project

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 on account of development charges directly recovered from the customers not forming part of sales turn over. The conclusion of A.O. is fully supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax,.. Vs M/s H.M. Esufall, H.M. Abdulali on 18th 22 Sunderdeep Construction Pvt. Ltd ITA No.784 & 786/Ind/2018 April, 1973 (Equivalent

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 on account of development charges directly recovered from the customers not forming part of sales turn over. The conclusion of A.O. is fully supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax,.. Vs M/s H.M. Esufall, H.M. Abdulali on 18th 22 Sunderdeep Construction Pvt. Ltd ITA No.784 & 786/Ind/2018 April, 1973 (Equivalent