DCIT , CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S VENUS ENTERPRISES , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

property than shown in sale deed in their individual Income Tax returns. In the absence of any evidence linking the payments stated to have been paid by 4 purchasers of the plots, merely based on their statements it could not be stated that the appellant has received additional consideration. The assessing officer cannot base a decision on assumption of probabilities

HARPREET KAUR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 5(2), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

deemed to be the\nincome of the assessee for the financial year under appeal, should be\ntreated and taxed as capital gain?\"\nTHIRD MEMBER ORDER\n1. CH. G. KRISHNAMURTHY (President).-- The assessee in this appeal is\nagitated by the imposition of tax treating the amount found on a search of her\nbank lockers as income from undisclosed sources negativing

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

Appeal is allowed

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

deemed to have been approved on the date on which the building plan of such housing project is first approved by the local authority; (ii) 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 project is issued by the local authority

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

Appeal is allowed

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

deemed to have been approved on the date on which the building plan of such housing project is first approved by the local authority; (ii) 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 project is issued by the local authority

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

Appeal is allowed

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

deemed to have been approved on the date on which the building plan of such housing project is first approved by the local authority; (ii) 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 project is issued by the local authority

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

Appeal is allowed

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

deemed to have been approved on the date on which the building plan of such housing project is first approved by the local authority; (ii) 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 project is issued by the local authority

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

Appeal is allowed

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

deemed to have been approved on the date on which the building plan of such housing project is first approved by the local authority; (ii) 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 project is issued by the local authority

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

dividend income in the year in\nquestion, it was held that it must be taken that the assessee had resiled from\nthe position which it had wrongly taken while filing the return. [CIT vs\nBharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd. (1981) 81 ITR 303 (DeI.)].\nc. In CIT Vs Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. (1956) 29 ITR 661 (SC), it was\nheld

GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

house of cards on\ntwo counts;\n\n(i)\nFirstly, the impugned SCN calling upon the appellant to showcase\nthe reasons as to why a penalty u/s 271AAB should not be\nimposed clearly concluded intimating the consideration of\nrepresentation before concluding proceedings imposing penalty u/s\n271AAB of the Act, as it ostensible from the reproduced text of SCN\nlaid

M/S. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. THE ACIT NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Nfac) Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Delhi Midc Chakan, Village Vs. Sawardari, Taluka Khed, Pune (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcb 2304 E Assessee By Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

deemed to be the income of the assessee under s.41(1) either. Thereupon the revenue asked for and obtained the reference of the following question: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs.14,665 received by the assessee from the Government of Andhra

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

property’. As per annual report, this company has developed a de novo drug design tool called “CELSUITE” and protected its IPR under Copyright/Patent Act. Based on its silico expertise, the company has developed a molecule to treat leucoderma and multiple cancer. The company has outlined its future plans in the field of bio-technology. The company has come out with