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

section 68 does not permit any addition qua the opening balances which are carried forward from earlier year and not accepted during the year. Ld. CIT(A) has rightly taken into account the decision of (i) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Usha Stud Farms (301 ITR 384), (ii) Shri Vardhman Overseas Page

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

disallowing the claim for deduction under section 801B (10) (s) of the Acl, in spite of a finding of fact by the income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the ultimate fact finding authority, that the Completion Certificate dated 24/12/2010 illed by the petitioner clearly montions that the project was completed in March 2008? (d) Has not the High Court erred

SHRI SAURABH KALANI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in both the assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

301 vs. Manish Jain, I.T.A.No. 5999/Del/12 dated 14.6.2013, wherein penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) on account of disallowance made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D was deleted. Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the disallowances u/s 14A is mere technical and legal and no penalty is leviable in both the assessment years on account of decision

SHRI MANISH KALANI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in both the assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

301 vs. Manish Jain, I.T.A.No. 5999/Del/12 dated 14.6.2013, wherein penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) on account of disallowance made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D was deleted. Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the disallowances u/s 14A is mere technical and legal and no penalty is leviable in both the assessment years on account of decision

THE ITO, 2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. GLOBUS HOUSING, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

disallowance of Rs.43,29,927/- made by the A.O. u/s 80IB(10) of IT Act, 1961. 2. allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Aeven though the assessee acted in the capacity of contractor and did not own the land and no colonizer licence was obtained by the assessee 3. allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IB

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S AGRAWAL CONSTRUCTION CO., BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

301. Completion certificate and permission to occupy or use – (1) Every person who – (i) Erects or re-erects any building; or (ii) Makes 21 any material external alteration in or addition to any existing building : or (iii) Constructs or re-constructs any projecting portion of a building which the Commissioner is empowered is empowered under section 305 require

M/S AGARWAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,BHOPAL vs. DYPTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

301. Completion certificate and permission to occupy or use – (1) Every person who – (i) Erects or re-erects any building; or (ii) Makes 21 any material external alteration in or addition to any existing building : or (iii) Constructs or re-constructs any projecting portion of a building which the Commissioner is empowered is empowered under section 305 require

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 of depreciation by the AO in the scrutiny assessment of the lender company would not epso facto lead to the conclusion that the transactions of loan between the lender company and assesse is not genuine. The Pr. CIT has not even verified the balance sheet and bank account statement of the lender company to come to prima facie conclusion

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2009-10 and paid the entire demand and has not filed an appeal against that order. The Explanation of the provision clearly states that “the date of completion of construction of the housing project shall be taken to be the date on which the completion certificate in respect of such housing

M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2009-10 and paid the entire demand and has not filed an appeal against that order. The Explanation of the provision clearly states that “the date of completion of construction of the housing project shall be taken to be the date on which the completion certificate in respect of such housing

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2009-10 and paid the entire demand and has not filed an appeal against that order. The Explanation of the provision clearly states that “the date of completion of construction of the housing project shall be taken to be the date on which the completion certificate in respect of such housing

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2009-10 and paid the entire demand and has not filed an appeal against that order. The Explanation of the provision clearly states that “the date of completion of construction of the housing project shall be taken to be the date on which the completion certificate in respect of such housing

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2009-10 and paid the entire demand and has not filed an appeal against that order. The Explanation of the provision clearly states that “the date of completion of construction of the housing project shall be taken to be the date on which the completion certificate in respect of such housing

KHANDWA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. ACIT, KHANDWA, KHANDWA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2017-18 Khandwa Industries Pvt. Ld., Acit, G-2 Amans Corner, Khandwa बनाम/ 301, Goyal Vihar, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aadck4103G Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025

301, Goyal Vihar, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AADCK4103G Assessee by Shri Soumya Bumb, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 09.02.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Addl/JCIT

THE ACIT 4(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUYASH EXIM P LTD , INDORE

Accordingly, departmental grounds with regard to addition of Rs.1,81,847/- are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2011-12

section 147.” 8. We find that during the year under consideration, the assessee was engaged in the business of trading of forward commodity derivatives on recognized commodity exchanges and was trading cum clearing member of NCDEX, MCX, NMCE and NBOT. The assessee did trading directly with the exchange and no broker was involved in any transaction. The assessee co. provided

M/S. MADHYA PRADESH CRICKET ASSOCIATION,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed and consequently the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13 Madhya Pradesh Cricket Dcit, 1(1), Association Indore बनाम/ Holkar Stadium, Vs. 7, Race Course Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaatg3527C Appellant By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Shri Arpit Gaur (Ar) Revenue By Shri Lal Chand (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.06.2017

disallowed the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 11(1)(a) & 11(2) of the Act amounting to Rs.4,80,95,629/- and Rs.11,88,81,442/- respectively. 4. The aggrieved assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) but without success as the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the first appellate authority upholding the order

SHRI ANIL KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-5(3), INDORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 194C(3) of the Act if at the time of making payment to the truck owner Form 15I (duly filled) is submitted to the buyer i.e. the assessee, then there is no liability to deduct the tax at source. Ld.A.O was not convinced with this submission and he went ahead making the disallowance

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

section 80G. This way, the CIT(A) has allowed total deduction of Rs. 86,51,546/- relatable to donation of Rs. 88,52,046/-. Ld. DR for revenue though dutifully advanced the ground of revenue but, however, could not point out any error in the order of CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any merit in the ground raised