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

disallowed an amount of Rs. 5,16,033/- out of total selling expenses for want of supporting documents etc. 5. Subsequently, a notice under section 263 of the Income Tax Act was issued by the Pr. CIT, Indore for the following three reasons and he was of the opinion that the assessment order as passed by the assessing officer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAJEEV AJMERA, INDORE

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

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-3(1) Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Co No.23/Ind/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.51/Ind/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Dcit-3(1) Indore Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Assessee By Shri Mahendra Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2022 आदेश/ O R D E R

disallowance for two reasons, viz. (i) the assessee could not furnish full evidences in support of the commission- payment, and (ii) the assessee could not produce the payees in person for verification. But we observe that during the course of appeal-proceeding before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has produced voluminous evidences, as narrated earlier, by means of Rule

M/S. MANISH FILMS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11

1) C/o Shri Jagdish Sharma Indore बनाम/ J-59, MIG Colony, Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AADCM7398D Appellant by Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Shri Kapil Shah, A.Rs Respondent by Shri Rajib Jain, D.R. Date of Hearing: 27.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 10.01.2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order

M/S BHOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,DEWAS vs. THE ACIT 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

1,25,000/- . The appellant has filed confirmation in respect of the advanced as pre Sl. no . 28 & 29 in the name of shri Om PrakashGoud and Shri Pop Singh Rajput from whom the appellant had received Rs. 75,000/- each and amount is outstsnding as it is their name. but it failed to file any detail in respect

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

1,25,000/- . The appellant has filed confirmation in respect of the advanced as pre Sl. no . 28 & 29 in the name of shri Om PrakashGoud and Shri Pop Singh Rajput from whom the appellant had received Rs. 75,000/- each and amount is outstsnding as it is their name. but it failed to file any detail in respect

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

1,25,000/- . The appellant has filed confirmation in respect of the advanced as pre Sl. no . 28 & 29 in the name of shri Om PrakashGoud and Shri Pop Singh Rajput from whom the appellant had received Rs. 75,000/- each and amount is outstsnding as it is their name. but it failed to file any detail in respect

M/S. BHOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,DEWAS vs. THE ITO, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

1,25,000/- . The appellant has filed confirmation in respect of the advanced as pre Sl. no . 28 & 29 in the name of shri Om PrakashGoud and Shri Pop Singh Rajput from whom the appellant had received Rs. 75,000/- each and amount is outstsnding as it is their name. but it failed to file any detail in respect

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE LTD., DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

1,25,000/- . The appellant has filed confirmation in respect of the advanced as pre Sl. no . 28 & 29 in the name of shri Om PrakashGoud and Shri Pop Singh Rajput from whom the appellant had received Rs. 75,000/- each and amount is outstsnding as it is their name. but it failed to file any detail in respect

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

1,25,000/- . The appellant has filed confirmation in respect of the advanced as pre Sl. no . 28 & 29 in the name of shri Om PrakashGoud and Shri Pop Singh Rajput from whom the appellant had received Rs. 75,000/- each and amount is outstsnding as it is their name. but it failed to file any detail in respect

M/S BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,DEWAS vs. THE ITO, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

1,25,000/- . The appellant has filed confirmation in respect of the advanced as pre Sl. no . 28 & 29 in the name of shri Om PrakashGoud and Shri Pop Singh Rajput from whom the appellant had received Rs. 75,000/- each and amount is outstsnding as it is their name. but it failed to file any detail in respect

NARENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,BURHANPUR vs. PCIT INDORE-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninarendra Kumar Agrawal Pcit (1) 203, Ck Campus Aaykar Bhawan Bahadarpur Road Vs. Indore Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adapa0131B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024

50C should not be invoked in your case. 5.1 Thus, the AO has raised specific quarries about the claim of short term capital loss of Rs.3,56,04,837/- arising from the transactions carried on stock exchange through the broker. The AO specifically asked the assessee to furnish details of cost of acquisitions with broker’s notes in respect

SHRI MANMOHAN GAMBHIR,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13

1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in maintaining the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 54EC. 1.1 It was proved before the lower authorities that the cheque was issued within six months for the purchase of the bond which is established from the copy of the bond and the bank statement. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in maintaining

SMT. CHANDRAVATI KAITHWAS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Learned lower authorities is vitiated on several grounds, hence the same may kindly be quashed. 2. That the order passed is illegal, unlawful and opposed to provisions of law. 3. That the learned Assessing Officer erred and was not justified in reopening the assessment

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAITHWAS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Learned lower authorities is vitiated on several grounds, hence the same may kindly be quashed. 2. That the order passed is illegal, unlawful and opposed to provisions of law. 3. That the learned Assessing Officer erred and was not justified in reopening the assessment

SHRI HANIF SHEIKH,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

1) served upon the assessee. Assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed at total income of Rs.79,09,900/- after making addition u/s 50C at Rs.14,11,600/- and Disallowance of brokerage expenses at Rs.3,60,000/-. Hanif Sheikh 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal

SHRI PURSHOTTAM KHATRI , BHOPAL vs. ITO 3(3), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2009-10

50C and Rs.3,35,000/- as shown by the assesse without considering the explanation offered during appellate proceedings. 4.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A() erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.130,493/- claimed u/s 48 of the Act being index cost of expenditure incurred for acquiring capital asset stating that

ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL vs. SHRI SANJEEV AGRAWAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 The Acit (Central)-2, Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Bhopal, Mp-462011 H.No.E-2/134, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal, Mp-452016 Pan Adhpa8387N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit(Dr) For Assessee : Shri S. S. Deshpande, Ca Shri Satyajeet Chatterjee, Ca

disallowed u/s. 14A of the Act by the AO. 28. Replying to the above the learned counsel of the assessee, drawing our attention towards relevant part of the assessment order while adjudicating ground no. 12 of assessee, submitted that in para 4.8 the Ld. CIT(A) has considered entire facts and circumstances of the issue and thereafter deleted the addition

SH. PARMANAND SISODIYA,INDORE vs. ITO-1(2), INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Parmanand Sisodiya, Ito, Flat No.404-405, Ax-18-C, 1(2), Satyamitra Paradise, Indore. Scheme No.71, Gumasta Vs. Nagar, Indore. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Alops1416K Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

disallowance so sustained being illegal and wrong, the same may very kindly deletd. 2. The assessee is an individual and filed return of income on 31st March, 2016, declaring total income of Rs. 1,90,050/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee has claimed deduction