M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

disallowance made at Rs.2048173/- therefore, be kindly deleted. 4. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned lower authorities wholly wrong and opposed to fact that the society had paid Rs.561877 to Vijay Ramani who is the member of the society and therefore, there is violation of section 13(1

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

disallowance made at Rs.2048173/- therefore, be kindly deleted. 4. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned lower authorities wholly wrong and opposed to fact that the society had paid Rs.561877 to Vijay Ramani who is the member of the society and therefore, there is violation of section 13(1

CHIRAYU CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,BHOPAL vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradchirayu Charitable Pcit (Central), Foundation,Bhopal Indore Bhopal Highway, Bhaisakhedi, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aaaac3656P Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Advocate, Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar, Advs Date Of Hearing 05.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement .02.2021 O R D E R Per Manish Borad, Am.

d) of the M.P. Niji Vyasayik Shikshan Sansthan (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Sansodhan Adhiniyam, 2013. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the recovery of the impugned order of fine from the petitioner institute shall remain stayed till the next date of listing.” 27. We thus observed that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court on prime facie has stayed

ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S RUCHI J OIL PVT. LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

D) of the Act to furnish the information and documents to the authority prescribed u/s 286(1). Thus, on plain reading of section 92D there was no requirement to furnish any report in Form 3CEB hence aforesaid notice for levy of penalty for failure to furnish information u/s 92D(4) was itself invalid because said sub-section (4) was inserted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

D) (E) (F) (G) (H) = (E-G) (I) =(G/D) (J) 1 Meeta 421 8200 40,40,000 44, 2,87,000 13,94,000 170 228 Rajesh 420 77- Panwar 463 78 2 Seema and 1725 1,82,500 45 60,375 1,22,125 70.80 228 Piyush Zalaya 1000 3 Rajeev

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

D) (E) (F) (G) (H) = (E-G) (I) =(G/D) (J) 1 Meeta 421 8200 40,40,000 44, 2,87,000 13,94,000 170 228 Rajesh 420 77- Panwar 463 78 2 Seema and 1725 1,82,500 45 60,375 1,22,125 70.80 228 Piyush Zalaya 1000 3 Rajeev

SOM DISTILLERIES PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(3), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

D E R Per Bench: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 30.05.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 30.12.2016 passed by ITO, 1(3), Page 1 of 54 Som Distilleries Private Limited I.T.A. Nos. 272 & 289/Ind/2023 - A.Y. 2014-15 Bhopal

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL , BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

D E R Per Bench: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 30.05.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 30.12.2016 passed by ITO, 1(3), Page 1 of 54 Som Distilleries Private Limited I.T.A. Nos. 272 & 289/Ind/2023 - A.Y. 2014-15 Bhopal

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

d) (e) (f) UG 15.00 546.88 280.94 280.00 Average Rate. FF 30.00 69.28 49.64 200.00 Rate of first floor can be slightly below than that of UG Floor LG 26.00 26.00 26.00 150.00 Rate of LG floor can be this much below than that of UG floor ITA Nos.117,118&344/Ind/2017 & 203/Ind/2018 DCIT vs. M. P. Entertainment & Developers

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

d) (e) (f) UG 15.00 546.88 280.94 280.00 Average Rate. FF 30.00 69.28 49.64 200.00 Rate of first floor can be slightly below than that of UG Floor LG 26.00 26.00 26.00 150.00 Rate of LG floor can be this much below than that of UG floor ITA Nos.117,118&344/Ind/2017 & 203/Ind/2018 DCIT vs. M. P. Entertainment & Developers

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

d) (e) (f) UG 15.00 546.88 280.94 280.00 Average Rate. FF 30.00 69.28 49.64 200.00 Rate of first floor can be slightly below than that of UG Floor LG 26.00 26.00 26.00 150.00 Rate of LG floor can be this much below than that of UG floor ITA Nos.117,118&344/Ind/2017 & 203/Ind/2018 DCIT vs. M. P. Entertainment & Developers

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3 (1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. ENTERTAINMENT AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

d) (e) (f) UG 15.00 546.88 280.94 280.00 Average Rate. FF 30.00 69.28 49.64 200.00 Rate of first floor can be slightly below than that of UG Floor LG 26.00 26.00 26.00 150.00 Rate of LG floor can be this much below than that of UG floor ITA Nos.117,118&344/Ind/2017 & 203/Ind/2018 DCIT vs. M. P. Entertainment & Developers

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

Appeal is allowed

d) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), dated 29th July, 2022, relating to the\n assessment year 2017-18, was challenged on the ground of non-\ncompliance of the formalities of taking approval of the specified\nauthority mentioned in Section 151 (ii) of the Act. The revenue cannot\ndispute the fact that identical issue was decided against

SHRI SHALIGRAM BAROD, ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

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-I Indore order dated 29.03.2019.The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1 that on the facts

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

272 of the paper book). These forms showed the manner of utilization of the Cumulative donations received by the university as well as the donation received from the assessee and the utilization as per the approval of National Committee u/s 35AC. The IT Return of M/s Gitanjali University for AY 2011-12 was placed (on page

CMM KETI JV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(3), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Cmm Keti Jv, Income-Tax Officer, 108, Shalimar Corporate 1(3), Center, Indore. बनाम/ 8-B, South Tukoganj, Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aakfc7524K Assessee By Shri Shashank Sharma, Ca & Shri Prakash Gupta, Ca Revenue By Shri Sanjeev H. Bhagat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2025

272(1)(d). Page 2 of 10 CMM Keti JV, Indore. ITA No. 73/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18 4. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) passed following order upholding the addition made by AO: “8. Ground no.1 is relating to addition of Rs. 1,03,58,390/- being 2% of the turnover as the income of the appellant. During the appellate

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY SHUKLA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Sanjay Shukla, Acit Central Circle 2, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit Central Circle 2, Shri Sanjay Shukla, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03..2022 आदेश / O R D E R

section 14A of the Income Tax, 1961 read with rule 8D. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of 21,33,556/- made by the Assessing officer on account of disallowance of various expenses. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SHRI SANJAY SHUKLA ,INDORE vs. ACIT,CENTRAL-CIRLE-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Sanjay Shukla, Acit Central Circle 2, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit Central Circle 2, Shri Sanjay Shukla, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03..2022 आदेश / O R D E R

section 14A of the Income Tax, 1961 read with rule 8D. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of 21,33,556/- made by the Assessing officer on account of disallowance of various expenses. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case