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

270 ITR 314 (MP) wherein it is observed that when profit rate is applied and income of the Appellant is estimated form business, no separate disallowance is called for under Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAR vs. JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, JHABUA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2015-16 Ito, Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Dhar Maryadit, बनाम/ Jhabua Vs. (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aacfj4887C Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal & Shri Harsh Choukse, Ar Revenue By Shri Anup Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 26.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2026

270/- after making disallowance of deduction of Rs. 81,02,617/- claimed by assessee u/s 80P. (ii) Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT, Ujjain passed revision-order dated 23.03.2020 u/s 263 terming the assessment-order passed by AO as erroneous-cum-prejudicial to the interest of revenue for certain issue(s). The Ld. PCIT set aside assessment-order and directed

GENDALAL JADHAV,INDORE vs. ITO-1(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanigendalal Jadhav, Ito 1(1) 168-G Palakhedi, Gandhi Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Nagar Indore Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aphpj4675K Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh, Ar Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2024 O R D E R

sections and the interpretation has to be made liberally.” 2. Ground no.1 is general in nature depending on outcome of specific issues raised by the assessee in ground no.2 & 3. 3. Ground no.2 is regarding disallowance of the claim of deduction on account of brokerage charges while computing the capital gain arising from the sale of agricultural land. During

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

disallowing said payments under section 40A (3)- Whether on facts, impugned revisional order did not require any interference- Held, yes [Para-16] [ In favour of revenue] 4.0 Therefore, in view of the above discussion I am of the considered opinion that the order dated: 06.01.2016 for A.Y. 2013-14 is erroneous in so far as it is also prejudicial

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

270/- chargeable under the head “Income from Business” but the same was not allowable since the assessee had taken loan in personal capacity and not for business. The PCIT noted that the AO has not verified this point and passed assessment-order. 4. By the aforesaid show-cause notice, the assessee was asked to explain as to why the assessment

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Section 1448 of the Act was passed on 19.12.2022\ndetermining total income at Rs.47,59,29,192/-thereby addition of\nRs.26.65 crores as under\na) By application of average gross profit rate of 7.20 percent on\nTurnover Rs. 16,77,57,242/-1\nb) Disallowance of foreign currency fluctuation loss. Rs. 60,63,000/-\nc) Disallowance out of traveling

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

THE ITO-1, KHANDWA vs. M/S. R S P REAL ESTATE, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Ito-1, M/S. Rsp Real Estate, बनाम/ Khandwa Ramkrishnaganj, Khandwa Vs. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aapfr1699K Assessee By Shri S.N.Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2023

270 ITR 382 (MP). 4.2 After going through the assessment order, it is clear that the AO had disallowed the said development expenses due to non-production of any document in respect of development expenses. But the appellant had submitted all the relevant documents i.e. bills, vouchers on e-filing portal before completion of assessment proceedings. The same were also

M/S SAHARA STATES,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowed in the subsequent years on the ground that project is not completed before time limit prescribed in the amended provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act. Ld. AR has also relied upon following decisions: (i) Sahara States vs. ACIT in ITANo.520/Hyd/2011 dated 17.10.2018 (ITAT, Hyderabad) (ii) M/s Sahara States Hyderabad vs. DCIT in ITANo.1498/Hyd/2012 and others dated

M/S SAHARA STATES,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowed in the subsequent years on the ground that project is not completed before time limit prescribed in the amended provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act. Ld. AR has also relied upon following decisions: (i) Sahara States vs. ACIT in ITANo.520/Hyd/2011 dated 17.10.2018 (ITAT, Hyderabad) (ii) M/s Sahara States Hyderabad vs. DCIT in ITANo.1498/Hyd/2012 and others dated

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012- 13 respectively. 2. ITA No. 199/Ind/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 is taken as the lead case. The disallowance of claim of long term capital gain on sale of listed shares amounting to Rs. 77,57,559/- is the issue before

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012- 13 respectively. 2. ITA No. 199/Ind/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 is taken as the lead case. The disallowance of claim of long term capital gain on sale of listed shares amounting to Rs. 77,57,559/- is the issue before

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012- 13 respectively. 2. ITA No. 199/Ind/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 is taken as the lead case. The disallowance of claim of long term capital gain on sale of listed shares amounting to Rs. 77,57,559/- is the issue before

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012- 13 respectively. 2. ITA No. 199/Ind/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 is taken as the lead case. The disallowance of claim of long term capital gain on sale of listed shares amounting to Rs. 77,57,559/- is the issue before

SHRI LOKENDRA PANWAR,INDORE vs. THE PCIT (1) , INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Lokendra Panwar Pcit (1) 8 B Chandra Nagar, A.B. Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Achpp2073R Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 31.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.12.2023

disallowed a sum of Rs.3,61,938/-. The AO was satisfied with the explanation of the assessee after conducting proper inquiry and verification of the Page 3 of 15 ITANo.185/Ind/2023 Lokendra Panwar record and claim of the assessee. He has further submitted that this issue is recurring issue and the AO has examined and allowed the claim for last three

M/S OREF SECURITIES PRIVATE LTD. ,MANDSAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.70/Ind/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Vs. Ito, Mandsaur. M/S.Oref Securities P.Ltd. 69, Agrasen Nagar B/H. Mid India Mandsaur.

Section 68: Cash credits -Share application money - No addition shall be made in the hands of the assessee where transaction related to the receipt of share application money are genuine and are fully recorded by the share applicants. 7 x) HONORABLE AHMEDABAD, IT AT TRIBUNAL (A) In The Case of ITO vs. APEX THERM PACKAGING PVT. LTD. When full particulars

C.I. FINLEASE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

270 (Bombay HC) and Oracle\nIndia Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2008) 13 DTR 372 (ITAT, Delhi), Ld. AR prayed to\ncondone the delay in present matters. During arguments, when the Bench raised\na pointed query to Ld. AR as to the period upto which the previous counsel\nhandled assessee's tax matters, Ld. AR asserted standing at the Bar that

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Vaishali Developers & Income-Tax Officer, Builders, 1(2), बनाम/ 240, M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan : Aacfv7638P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Final Hearing 08.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2024

section 80IB(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, therefore, the income from such project is deductible under the said provisions. The Ld. CIT(A) erred and not justified in his findings that the appellant is not eligible for the deductible u/s 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, therefore, that findings