ANDRITZ HYDRO P LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing

disallowed the mark to market loss of Rs.30,31,69,199/- on forward contracts. Andritz Hydro Private Ltd. ITANo.198 & 199/Ind/2020 7. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of Ld. PCIT and submitted that the provision for mark to market loss on derivative contracts is a contingent liability, therefore, the powers under section 263

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

INFOBEANS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE, M.P.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed being devoid of

Bench: Sh. Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for re-examining the issue of disallowance of expenses under section 14A of the Act even

SMT ANUPAMA ASSWA,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकर अपील सं. / I.T.A. No. 59/Ind/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Smt. Anupama Asawa, Pcit-I, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs.

section 263 of the Act and directing the assessing officer to disallow the deduction as claimed by the appellant under

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

disallowance. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal. Subsequently, the Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act, disallowed

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

section 263. However, once the AO has conducted an inquiry and was satisfied about the claim of the assesse then the order of the AO cannot be held as erroneous for lack of inquiry. In case the commissioner does not agree with the order of the AO then he has to give finding to the effect that the order passed

MAA NARMADA AGROTECH AND INFRASTURES LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1 , INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimaa Narmada Agrotech & Pcit Infrastructures Limited Indore -1 Ug-47, Trade Centre, Vs. Kanchan Bagh Main Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcm6285 P Assessee By Shri S.N. Goyal & Shri Pranay Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.07.2023

disallowance of Rs.1,20,000/- in respect of Tipper Transportation penalty which was also added back to the total income by the assessee itself. Thereafter, the Pr. CIT on examination of the assessment record noticed certain discrepancies and issued show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act dated 25.02.2022. In the show cause notice Pr. CIT has pointed out various

M/S. S.R. FERRO ALLOYS,JHABUA vs. THE PCIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act whereas the SCN under section 263 was regarding the FIFO method of valuation

M/S. RAJDHANI LAND & HOUSING CORPORATION,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed and

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2007-08 M/S Rajdhani Land & Pr. Cit-1, Housing Corporation, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aahfr4618J Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal & Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ars Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.08.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’ For Short) By Ld. Pr. Cit-1 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 20.09.2019. Rajdhani Land & Housing

section 263 of the Act and vide order dated 14.03.2016 held the assessment order dated 31.03.2014 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and directed the Ld. AO to decide it afresh. 5. Aggrieved with the order u/s 263 of the Act dated 14.03.2016 assessee preferred an appeal before this tribunal praying for quashing the order u/s 263

M/S RANA & JOSHI BUILDTECH P LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pr. Cit-1 Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (Formerly Known As M/S Rana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) Vs. 218 Civil Lines, Below Dainik Bhaskar Office Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcr9858P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .09.2024

section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and directing the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment de novo after examining the issue related to disallowance

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance u/s 68 of the Act pertaining to accommodation entry received by the assessee through shell entities and has also paid commission to the intermediaries @ 1%. The ld. CIT-DR submitted that the AO made addition by considering the statement of Director of Mega Money Commodities Pvt. Ltd. (MMCPL) which was deleted by the ld.CIT(A) without any basis. Therefore

THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance u/s 68 of the Act pertaining to accommodation entry received by the assessee through shell entities and has also paid commission to the intermediaries @ 1%. The ld. CIT-DR submitted that the AO made addition by considering the statement of Director of Mega Money Commodities Pvt. Ltd. (MMCPL) which was deleted by the ld.CIT(A) without any basis. Therefore

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance u/s 68 of the Act pertaining to accommodation entry received by the assessee through shell entities and has also paid commission to the intermediaries @ 1%. The ld. CIT-DR submitted that the AO made addition by considering the statement of Director of Mega Money Commodities Pvt. Ltd. (MMCPL) which was deleted by the ld.CIT(A) without any basis. Therefore

NEENA DADWANI,UJJAIN vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Neena Dadwani, Pcit-1, 6, Sunshine Tower, Indore. बनाम/ Priyadarshini Square, Ujjain Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abopd0598D Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2023

263 is valid in the eyes of law? 8. Ld. AR initially explained that the assessee committed an error while filing return of income. The assessee inadvertently claimed deduction of interest expenditure of Rs. 28,43,841/- u/s 57 against “Income from other sources” although the same was claimable and allowable as deduction against “Income from Business”. Therefore, when

SHABANA BEE ,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(3), INDORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shabana Bee, Pcit-1, 786, Vishwas Indore बनाम/ Nagarbanzari, Vs. Pithampur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Asfpb 7940 R Assessee By Shri Subhash Chandra Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2023

section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, if in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner - (a) The order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) The order

SAHARAYN UNIVERSAL MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

section 254\nof the IT Act, 1961. There shall be no order as to costs.\nFurther, in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) it was observed that :\nDeduction claimed by way of a letter before the AO, was disallowed on the\nground that there was no provision under the Act to make amendment in the return\nwithout filing

RAJKUMAR GOYAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assesse is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniraj Kumar Goyal Pr. Cit-2 42, Narmda Marg Barwaha Indore Vs. Khargone (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Ackpg 1896N Assessee By Shri Ram Gilda, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.11.2023

section 263 on account of lack of proper inquiry by the AO on two issues; first for of not making disallowance

SANTOSH RATHORE,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

disallowance\nof expenses/loss or increase in income, the assessee would have certainly\ngone in first-appeal and challenged the legality of original/re-assessment\nproceeding also. But in present case, the assessee had no necessity or\noccasion to challenge the illegality of original/re-assessment proceeding.\nHowever, since the PCIT has taken revisionary action u/s 263, set aside\nAO's order and given direction