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

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

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

256 or the Supreme Court under section 257 or in appeal before the Supreme\nCourt under section 261.\nSignature of the Declarant\n[Permanent Account Number]:\nDK Goyal:\nD.K. Construction: AAAFD7121P\n1, Dinesh Kumar Goyal do hereby declare that to the best of my knowledge and belief what is\nstated above is correct, complete and is truly stated.\n1 further

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

Appeal is allowed

disallowance, neither any other claim was\ndisallowed nor any addition was made. In support of his order of re-\nassessment the Assessing Officer purported to have relied upon the order of\nthe Commissioner of the Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 1986-\n87, which was passed on 27th July 1990, although the assessment was re-\nopened on 20th April

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

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

JCIT OSD (CENTRAL)-1, RATLAM 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

M/S. BHANDARI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

disallowance, cannot be lost sight of, equally, such a requirement has to be viewed in the context and circumstances of each given case. In the present case, it was repeatedly emphasized that the assessee’s dividend income was confined to what it received from investment made in a sister concern, and that only one dividend warrant was received. These facts

THE DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL vs. M/S. INDORE EDUCATION AND SERVICE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13

256 (Del): "thus the case of the assessee had submitted two revised computations of income during the assessment proceedings. It had in us return of income claimed a part of deferred revenue expenditure us revenue expenditure while the reimagining was carried to the balance sheet. In the revised computation, the assessee claimed total deferred relJenue expenditure as relJellue expenditure

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. DR. SHRI RAJEEV CHAUDHARY, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Pan : Abkpc5729K Assistant Commissioner Of V/S Dr.Rajeev Choudhary Income Tax, 1, Shiv Vilas Palace Circle-2(1), Indore Indore

section 143(3) of IT, Act, 1961 at Rs.3,17,71,700/- 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded as Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at Rs.2,15,542/- and allowed the assessee’s claim of profit from purchase and sale of equity shares held for less

M/S. RITSPIN SYNTHETICS LTD.,PITHAMPUR vs. THE DCIT,/CPC, BANGLORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S Ritspin Synthetics Dcit, Cpc, Ltd. Bangalore Plot No.2, Kheda Vs. Industrial Growth Center, Pithampur District - Dhar (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr 8303 E Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

disallowances, viz. (i) provision for gratuity u/s 40A(7) of Rs. 32,70,362/-; and (ii) employees’ contributions to PF/ESI u/s 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of Rs. 1,28,43,256

ANIL KUMAR GUPTA,BHOPAL vs. ITO, 4(3), BHOPAL, OFFICE OF ITO BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

disallowed extra interest of Rs.15,08,951/-.\n13.\nDuring first-appeal, the CIT(A) upheld AO's order.\n14.\nBefore us, Ld. AR for assessee made following submissions in Written-\nSynopsis:\n“1. At the outset it is submitted that the total land area was 4500 sq ft. (PB\n101), Ld. AO erroneously based on a total area

M/S. WORKS STATION SYSTEMS (P) LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT (CENTRAL) GWALIOR, STATION BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

disallowance Amount Interest on delayed 2,220 payment of entry tax Charges on delayed supply 50,256 5. In Ground No. (1), the objection raised is in respect to delayed payment of entry tax. 5.1 It is submitted that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Sugar Mills

INCOME TAX OFFICER 5 (1), INDORE vs. M/S SATYAMITRA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the departmental appeal i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2012-13

disallowance of loss as claimed and Rs.61,84,343/- on account of estimation of income under section 145 of the Act. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue read as under: 1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is justified in directing to delete the addition of Rs. 2,42,25,698/- made

ACIT CENTRAL-2 INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI .GAURAV TEKRIWAL, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

256 and purchased a house at Delhi. The exemption was claimed from the charge of tax on capital gain under Section 54F of the Act. It was, rejected by the ITO as also by the Tribunal. This Court observed that substantial investment was made in construction of the house. In view of the requirement of Section