M/S RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIK VISHWAVIDHALYA,HOSANGABAD vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 324 & 325/Ind/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vs. Dcit, Vishwavidyalaya, Cpc, Bhopal Bangaluru

2 ( S.C.), is applicable, then the interest earned may not fall in the category of income from other sources, but may come in the category of income earned from business. That being the legal position it is to be held that in the matter of assessment of income in question a debatable question arises and therefore taxing of income

M/S RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIK VISHWAVIDHALYA,HOSANGABAD vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 324 & 325/Ind/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vs. Dcit, Vishwavidyalaya, Cpc, Bhopal Bangaluru

2 ( S.C.), is applicable, then the interest earned may not fall in the category of income from other sources, but may come in the category of income earned from business. That being the legal position it is to be held that in the matter of assessment of income in question a debatable question arises and therefore taxing of income

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

2 above in appeal before any appellate authority or for a reference before the High Court under section 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

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 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 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 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

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

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

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

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

256 ITR 1, wherein the Full Bench of this Court had taken a completely contrary view and it was submitted that the Division Bench did not follow the Full Bench. It was pointed out that the Full Bench held that when a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of section 143(3) of the Act, a presumption

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

256 ITR 1, wherein the Full Bench of this Court had taken a completely contrary view and it was submitted that the Division Bench did not follow the Full Bench. It was pointed out that the Full Bench held that when a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of section 143(3) of the Act, a presumption

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

256 ITR 1, wherein the Full Bench of this Court had taken a completely contrary view and it was submitted that the Division Bench did not follow the Full Bench. It was pointed out that the Full Bench held that when a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of section 143(3) of the Act, a presumption

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

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

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

2,63,603/- Total under assessment is to the tune of Rs.43,91,603/-. The case is covered Under Section 147. Notice Under Section 148 is issued." The assesse objected to the said reopening of the assessment. However, an order of re-assessment was passed on 24th September 1990 determining the total income at Rs.23,56,523/-, whereby