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

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

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

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

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

256(2) of the Act.\nXXX\n22. We are unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Jolly to the effect that\nthe impugned order of reassessment cannot be faulted as the same was\nbased on information derived from the tax audit report. The tax audit\nreport has already been submitted by the assessee. It is one thing

PRADEEP PINJANI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

2) of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). The procedure for handling 'Limited Scrutiny' cases shall be as under:\n\na. In 'Limited Scrutiny' cases, the reasons/issues shall be forthwith communicated to the assessee\nconcerned.\n\nb. The Questionnaire under section 142(1) of the Act in 'Limited Scrutiny' cases shall remain\nconfined only to the specific reasons/issues for which

M/S ROCKBED RENOVATORS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirockbed Renovators Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 7-A, Panjabi Bagh Raisen Road Bhopal Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7151G Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2024

section 263 by issuing a show cause notice dated 20.02.2023 which is reproduced as under: “1………. 2. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the AO that the assessee company has made large payments to various contractors w/s 194C. As per Form 3CD total payments to sub-contractors are to the tune of Rs. 1,22,75,870/-. Details

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

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

2) Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2003] 127 Taxman 523/[2002] 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

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

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

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

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

MOHANLAL KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

disallowed the claim made u/s 10(38) towards Long Term Capital Gain. However in this aspect we have considered the judgment passed by the Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Swati Luthra Vs ITO reported in (2020) 115 taxmann.com 167 (Delhi-Trib) where the scrips of this particular 12 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7

SMT. SANDHYA KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

disallowed the claim made u/s 10(38) towards Long Term Capital Gain. However in this aspect we have considered the judgment passed by the Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Swati Luthra Vs ITO reported in (2020) 115 taxmann.com 167 (Delhi-Trib) where the scrips of this particular 12 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7