MAKSON HEALTH CARE P LTD,MANDIDEEP vs. THE DCIT/ACCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals filed by the assesse in ITANo

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

section 36(1)(i) amounting to Rs. 98,95,148/-. Page 2 of 9 ITA No.34 & 35/Ind/2023 Makson Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 of 9 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned lower authorities erred and were not justified in disallowing delayed payment of employees contributions to PF and ESIC amounting

MAKSON HEALH CARE P LTD,MANDIDEEP vs. THE DCIT/ACIT1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals filed by the assesse in ITANo

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

section 36(1)(i) amounting to Rs. 98,95,148/-. Page 2 of 9 ITA No.34 & 35/Ind/2023 Makson Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 of 9 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned lower authorities erred and were not justified in disallowing delayed payment of employees contributions to PF and ESIC amounting

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

section 68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 was not justified and was 27 Sanjay Lunawat ITA No.396/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.32/Ind/2018 rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A) as the assessee filed requisite documentary evidences so as to justify the identity and creditworthiness of these parties and genuineness of the transactions as entered into with them. Thus, we confirm the order

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

Section 263 of the Act. In such matters, to remand the matter/issue to the Assessing Officer would imply and mean the CIT has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed the Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question. 17. This distinction must be kept in mind by the CIT while exercising jurisdiction under Section

JAIMAL SINGH AND SONS,PIPARIYA vs. THE ACIT CP BANGALORE, BENGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanijaimal Singh & Sons Acit, Cpc, 159 Nehru Ward, Pipariya Bangalore Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaafj 8045J Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23.08.2023

section 438 was complied with to claim the deduction during AY 2020-21. (3) The Ld CIT (A) NAFC erred in demanding the revised tax audit report for rectification of mistake in disallowing

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS ,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

438-447. Further, in A.Y. 2007-08, the issue of deduction was disallowed Page 28 of 34 Vaishali Developers And Builders ITA Nos. 26 & 27/Ind/2024- AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10 again in proceedings u/s. 147. The matter again travelled before this Tribunal and in ITA No. 472 & 473/Ind/2015, vide order dated 08.01.2019 deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act was allowed

SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), INDORE

In the result, both the appeal of assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & And Hon'Ble Manish Borad

438 sq.ft which showed his complete ignorance about the property. ix) that he was not aware about the sale deed and was not present at the time of the registration. x)that he was not present at the finalization of the deal as only Mr. Sanjay Badjatiya was aware of that. xi) that he was not present when the purchaser

SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), INDORE

In the result, both the appeal of assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & And Hon'Ble Manish Borad

438 sq.ft which showed his complete ignorance about the property. ix) that he was not aware about the sale deed and was not present at the time of the registration. x)that he was not present at the finalization of the deal as only Mr. Sanjay Badjatiya was aware of that. xi) that he was not present when the purchaser

SHRI OM PRAKASH PATIDAR (HUF),INDORE vs. THE ITO 2(4), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

438/-, income from other sources of Rs.23,90,602/- and unexplained credit in bank account of Rs.17,51,000/-. Hence, the A.O. after giving deduction under Chapter 16A assessed income at Rs.97,40,840/-. 2 [ITA No.220/Ind/2017] [Shri Om Prakash Patidar (HUF), Indore] The assessing officer also computed agricultural income at Rs.3,00,000/- against the agricultural income claimed

ITO 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S AMKAY COLONISERS & BUILDERS P LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ito 1(1) M/S. Amkay Colonisers & Bhopal Builders Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 16, Amar Stambh, Z-1, M.P. Nagar Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue ) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaeca 6272 F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.12.2022

438/- and as such, it cannot be said that the company has not proved the creditworthiness. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Goodview Trading (P.) Ltd. [2017] 77 taxmann.com 204. In the instant case, the High Court has decided the issue of section 68 in favour

SANKALP SAKH SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,MANDSAUR vs. THE PCIT-1 , INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisankalp Sakh Sahkari Pr. Cit-1 Sanstha Maryadit Indore 1, C/O Smriti Nagrik Sahkari Vs. Bank Dayamandir Road Goshala Market, Mandsaur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaeas0312G Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2024

Section 80P(2)(d) envisages deduction for interest income earned only from co- operative societies and not from co- operative banks. However, you have earned interest Income of Rs.27,86,438/- from a co-operative bank. In view of the above, you are requested to explain why the amount of Rs.27,86,438/- as interest income earned from

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

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

438-447. Further, in A.Y. 2007-08, the issue of deduction was disallowed again in proceedings u/s. 147. The matter again travelled before this Tribunal and in ITA No. 472 & 473/Ind/2015, vide order dated 08.01.2019 deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act was allowed. The order has been placed in the assessee's paper book at PB 125-145. Further

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

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

438-447. Further, in A.Y. 2007-08, the issue of deduction was disallowed again in proceedings u/s. 147. The matter again travelled before this Tribunal and in ITA No. 472 & 473/Ind/2015, vide order dated 08.01.2019 deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act was allowed. The order has been placed in the assessee's paper book at PB 125-145. Further

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

section 263 of the Act on this issue and setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. As regards the issue regarding trade payable and trade receivable shown in the balance sheet the Ld. AR submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee produced all the relevant details of debtors and unsecured loan receipts

PRITESH JAIN HUF,INDORE vs. ITO 4 (2), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de-mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels.” The above noted factors, including

SHRI NILESH JAIN HUF,INDORE vs. ITO 4(2), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de-mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels.” The above noted factors, including

INCOME TAX OFFICER-5(5), INDORE vs. SHRI RAJEEV SAREEN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito-5(5) Shri Rajeev Sareen Indore Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Rajeev Sareen Ito-5(5) Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aswps 1142 D Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17.10.2022

disallowed. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed first-appeal to Ld. CIT(A) and got substantial relief. Now, the revenue as well as assessee both are aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) and have come before us. 3. We first take up revenue’s appeal and thereafter assessee’s appeal. Revenue’s Appeal: 4. Revenue has raised following grounds

RAJIV SARIN,INDORE vs. ITO WARD 5 (5), INDORE

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito-5(5) Shri Rajeev Sareen Indore Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Rajeev Sareen Ito-5(5) Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aswps 1142 D Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17.10.2022

disallowed. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed first-appeal to Ld. CIT(A) and got substantial relief. Now, the revenue as well as assessee both are aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) and have come before us. 3. We first take up revenue’s appeal and thereafter assessee’s appeal. Revenue’s Appeal: 4. Revenue has raised following grounds