M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

56,76,330 Kalyan Nav Nirman 2010-11 9,66,510 Kalyan Marble & 2010-11 6,47,000 Granite Name of assessee A.Y. Amount Rs. Keti-T Construction 2010-11 72,81,800 Keti Sangam 2010-11 85,43,360 Infrastructure Keti Sangam 2009-10 6,28,330 Infrastructure Keti Sangam 2007-08 3,80,020 Infrastructure 14. In view

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

56,76,330 Kalyan Nav Nirman 2010-11 9,66,510 Kalyan Marble & 2010-11 6,47,000 Granite Name of assessee A.Y. Amount Rs. Keti-T Construction 2010-11 72,81,800 Keti Sangam 2010-11 85,43,360 Infrastructure Keti Sangam 2009-10 6,28,330 Infrastructure Keti Sangam 2007-08 3,80,020 Infrastructure 14. In view

M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

56,76,330 Kalyan Nav Nirman 2010-11 9,66,510 Kalyan Marble & 2010-11 6,47,000 Granite Name of assessee A.Y. Amount Rs. Keti-T Construction 2010-11 72,81,800 Keti Sangam 2010-11 85,43,360 Infrastructure Keti Sangam 2009-10 6,28,330 Infrastructure Keti Sangam 2007-08 3,80,020 Infrastructure 14. In view

JYOTI GOYAL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed as mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Jyoti Goyal, Dcit, 18, Shyamla Hills, 1(1), बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abbpg3493P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

1 of 24 Jyoti Goyal, Bhopal ITA No. 380/Ind/2023 – AY 2012-13 (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the assessee the Ld. CIT(A), Delhi, was not justified in confirming disallowance of addition of Rs. 90,75,000/- invoking provision of section 56(2)(vii

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

vii)The decision of Rajasthan Vikas Sansthan Vs. CIT reported in 78 DTR 411 (Raj), wherein it is held as under :- The registration can be cancelled on the ground that the activity of the trust are not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with the object of the trust. In case there are violations as mentioned

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

vii)The decision of Rajasthan Vikas Sansthan Vs. CIT reported in 78 DTR 411 (Raj), wherein it is held as under :- The registration can be cancelled on the ground that the activity of the trust are not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with the object of the trust. In case there are violations as mentioned

THE DCIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. KALYAN TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

vii) Hon’ble Bombay Tribunal in the case of Indrani Sunil Pillai V/s ACIT (2018) 52 CCH 0056. (viii) Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of ABRAuto Pvt. Ltd V/s ACIT (2017) 51 CCH 0477. 16. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the written submission and decisions referred

THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE vs. M/S KETI CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) LTD. , INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

vii) Hon’ble Bombay Tribunal in the case of Indrani Sunil Pillai V/s ACIT (2018) 52 CCH 0056. (viii) Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of ABRAuto Pvt. Ltd V/s ACIT (2017) 51 CCH 0477. 16. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the written submission and decisions referred

THE ACIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. NARMADA MALWA GRAMIN BANK, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit- 3(1) M/S. Narmada Malwa Gramin Indore Bank, बनाम/ 201, Arcade Silver, 56 Shops, New Vs. Palasia, Indore (M.P.) (Revenue ) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaccn2847F Assessment Year: 2008-09

56 Vs. Shops, New Palasia, Indore (M.P.) (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No. AACCN2847F Appellant by Shri S.S. Deshpande CA Revenue by Shri Lal Chand CIT Date of Hearing: 26.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 04 .05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: These cross appeals filed by the Revenue and assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2008-09 are directed against

M/S. NARMADA MALWA GRAMIN BANK,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-3(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit- 3(1) M/S. Narmada Malwa Gramin Indore Bank, बनाम/ 201, Arcade Silver, 56 Shops, New Vs. Palasia, Indore (M.P.) (Revenue ) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaccn2847F Assessment Year: 2008-09

56 Vs. Shops, New Palasia, Indore (M.P.) (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No. AACCN2847F Appellant by Shri S.S. Deshpande CA Revenue by Shri Lal Chand CIT Date of Hearing: 26.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 04 .05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: These cross appeals filed by the Revenue and assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2008-09 are directed against

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

disallowing said payments under section 40A (3)- Whether on facts, impugned revisional order did not require any interference- Held, yes [Para-16] [ In favour of revenue] 4.0 Therefore, in view of the above discussion I am of the considered opinion that the order dated: 06.01.2016 for A.Y. 2013-14 is erroneous in so far as it is also prejudicial

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowing entire deprecation claimed by appellant and secondly not justified in estimating NP @ 5%. Thus, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 2,04,60,184/- is Deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed.” 18. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the facts discussed above squarely establish that

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowing entire deprecation claimed by appellant and secondly not justified in estimating NP @ 5%. Thus, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 2,04,60,184/- is Deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed.” 18. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the facts discussed above squarely establish that

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowing entire deprecation claimed by appellant and secondly not justified in estimating NP @ 5%. Thus, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 2,04,60,184/- is Deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed.” 18. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the facts discussed above squarely establish that

ACIT (CENTRAL UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S ARIHANT FUTURE AND COMMODITIES LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

56,102/- incurred during the year under consideration which is prayed to be now allowed. M/s Arihant Future and Commodities Ltd., Indore ITANo.374/Ind/2019 & others 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, to alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and/or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal. As the issues raised in these appeals are mostly common and relate

THE ACIT, CENTRAL - UJJAIN, INDORE vs. M/S ARIHANT FUTURE & COMMADITIES LTD , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

56,102/- incurred during the year under consideration which is prayed to be now allowed. M/s Arihant Future and Commodities Ltd., Indore ITANo.374/Ind/2019 & others 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, to alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and/or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal. As the issues raised in these appeals are mostly common and relate

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-UJJAIN, INDORE vs. M/S ARIHANT CAPITALS MARKETS LTD , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

56,102/- incurred during the year under consideration which is prayed to be now allowed. M/s Arihant Future and Commodities Ltd., Indore ITANo.374/Ind/2019 & others 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, to alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and/or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal. As the issues raised in these appeals are mostly common and relate

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

56,78,653, which has been allowed in A.Y. 2009-10 in proportion to the total cost to be incurred over the life cycle of the project. Thus, proportionate adjustment for the extraordinary cost incurred in F.Y. 2008-09 should be allowed during F.Y. 2009-10. If the effect of the extra-ordinary event is ignored, the revised Adjusted Gross