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

256 ( or section 260A). Needless to say the orders passed by the Tribunal are binding on all the Revenue authorities functioning under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.” 5.13 The Hon'ble M.P. High Court had also categorically stated that “obviously, the CIT(A) not only committed judicial impropriety but also erred in law in refusing to follow the order

D.K CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (3), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanid. K Construction Ito 2(3) E 2/21, Pandit Deeendayal Bhopal Complex, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaafd7121P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit- Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09 .09.2024

256 or the Supreme Court under section 257 or in appeal before the Supreme Court under section 261.” 3.1 Ld. AR of the assesse has submitted that the issue involved in ground no.1 of the assesse’s appeal is identical as substantial question of law pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in assesse’s own case

THE ACIT, -2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assesse is disposed off in terms of

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

256 or the Supreme Court under section 257 or in appeal before the Supreme Court under section 261. Signature of the Declarant [Permanent Account Number]: DK Goyal: D.K. Construction: AAAFD7121P 1, Dinesh Kumar Goyal do hereby declare that to the best of my knowledge and belief what is stated above is correct, complete and is truly stated. 1 further declare

M/S. BCC ENTERPRISES (INDIA) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ITO-1(4), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14

section 13 8 Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonor of a cheque of Rest.61.00 crores issued by accused persons is also registered and is pending in the court at Indore. Court has issued Bailable warrant against the accused persons. BCC Enterprises (India) Ltd B. As a result of criminal cases launched against accused companies, BCC Enterprises (India Ltd. received back

M/S PRADHAN ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,DEWAS vs. THE ACIT 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

256/-. 20. Apropos to Ground No.1 & ground no.2 relating to disallowance of excise duty payable at Rs.19,55,702/-. Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that vide order of Addl. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax dated 31.03.2011 demands towards Excise Duty and Education Cess, for F.Y. 2005-06 and F.Y. 2006-07 was raised at Rs.19

M/S PRADHAN ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,DEWAS vs. THE ACIT 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

256/-. 20. Apropos to Ground No.1 & ground no.2 relating to disallowance of excise duty payable at Rs.19,55,702/-. Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that vide order of Addl. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax dated 31.03.2011 demands towards Excise Duty and Education Cess, for F.Y. 2005-06 and F.Y. 2006-07 was raised at Rs.19

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance. 36. Now coming to the appeals filed in penalty proceedings filed by the assessee, we take up appeal in ITA No.752/Ind/2016 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- imposed

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PVT.LTD.,INDORE vs. THE JCIT, R-5 (PRESENT AO: DCIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance. 36. Now coming to the appeals filed in penalty proceedings filed by the assessee, we take up appeal in ITA No.752/Ind/2016 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- imposed

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance. 36. Now coming to the appeals filed in penalty proceedings filed by the assessee, we take up appeal in ITA No.752/Ind/2016 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- imposed

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance. 36. Now coming to the appeals filed in penalty proceedings filed by the assessee, we take up appeal in ITA No.752/Ind/2016 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- imposed

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance. 36. Now coming to the appeals filed in penalty proceedings filed by the assessee, we take up appeal in ITA No.752/Ind/2016 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- imposed

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT- RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance. 36. Now coming to the appeals filed in penalty proceedings filed by the assessee, we take up appeal in ITA No.752/Ind/2016 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- imposed

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance. 36. Now coming to the appeals filed in penalty proceedings filed by the assessee, we take up appeal in ITA No.752/Ind/2016 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- imposed

RNG CONSTRUCTION CO,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL.,JT.,DY.,ASSTT.ITO, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

disallowed nor any addition was made. In support of his order of re- assessment the Assessing Officer purported to have relied upon the order of the Commissioner of the Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 1986- 87, which was passed on 27th July 1990, although the assessment was re- opened on 20th April 1990. The contention of the assessed

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

256 Eligible investment as tabulated in Table no.3 Rs.90,34,341/- 19. Thus as manifest from the assessment order that the AO did not accept the claim of the assessee regarding fair market value of the land as on 01.04.1981 and referred the matter to the DVO, however, the report of the DVO was not received till the limitation

M/S. CHHAGANLAL KISHANLAL & CO.,BURHANPUR vs. THE ACIT, KHANDWA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

256/-, (consisting of capital of partners of Rs. 10,04,83,765/-, loan and advances from friends and relatives and Rs. 12,25,81,177/- from sundry creditors), as against total interest bearing funds of Rs. 8,19,66,386/- mainly borrowed from bank. Thus, total interest-free funds and interest bearing funds of Rs. 37,67,71,642/- were

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

256 ITR 360 (Guil) and Zafa Ahmed & Co. v. CIT [2013] 30 taxmann.com 267/214 Taxman 440 (All). It Page 40 of 53 ITANo.344/Ind/2023 Abhushan may also be noted here that the ITAT restored the appeals of assessee to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for A.Ys. 2009-2010 and 2010- 2011. In A.Y. 2010-2011 the same

ACIT (CENTRAL) 1 INDORE , INDORE vs. SHRI KANTILAL KATARIA, RATLAM

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

disallowance of business loss in the light of the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate such business losses with any documentary evidences. 6 Kantilal Kataria,Ratlam Asstt.Yr.2011-12, 2012-13 3.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the set off of confirmed addition of Rs.36