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

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

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

SHARAD AGARWAL,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITO),, SEHORE

Appeal is allowed

301\n1,26,760\nThus, the increase in loan during the year is a negligible amount of Rs.\n1,26,760/- only; all other loans are old. Therefore, Ld. AR contended, having\nregard to these facts, no disallowance ought to have been made by AO. Per\ncontra, Ld. DR for revenue supported the disallowance made by AO but at\nthe

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE ACIT CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S RAMDEV SUGARS P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit Central-1 M/S. Ramdev Sugars Pvt. Indore Ltd. बनाम/ 25, Nasia Road, Near Bus Stand, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aabcr 8097 G Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Deepak Mantri, Ar Date Of Hearing 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.03.2023

301/- in relation to the business of “generation of power”. The case was subjected to scrutiny and the Ld. AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) wherein the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80-IA(4)(iv) was denied. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal and succeeded. Now, the revenue has come in this appeal before us assailing the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, NASHIK vs. MAHAKALESHWAR TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 123/Ind/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18)

disallowed appellant's claim for the depreciation on the 'Concessionaire's Toll Collection Rights' on the premise that the said right is not an intangible asset on which a claim for depreciation can be allowed. The learned AO has mistakenly concluded that the right given to the Appellant is in the nature of reimbursement of the cost incurred

M/S NIKHIL ESTATE P LTD,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE (3) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Nikhil Estate Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Central)-3 M-102, Mezzanine, Floor, Indore Dhan Trident, P. No.B-3 Pu- Vs. 4, Sch. No.54, Vijay Nagar Square, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 8056 D Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.06.2023

disallowance made by the AO u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE is unlawful. Further, the amended provisions of section 115BBE are applicable from 01.04.2017 and not from the date of search. 4.1.2 I have considered the entire matrix of the case, various case law cited by the appellant and also perused assessment order. It is undisputed fact that during the course