DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

House property, Share of profit and income from other sources. Survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act was carried out at the premises of M/s Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre (In short BHRC) on 24.09.2011. During the course of survey proceedings certain discrepancies were noticed. Incriminating material in the form of Hundis were found and impounded. The assessee in his individual

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

property. E- M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. return of income filed on 27.09.2013 declaring loss of Rs.51,72,569/- which comprises of depreciation loss at Rs.1,53,066/- and business loss of Rs.50,19,503/-. Case selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS for the reason ‘large unsecured loans’. Notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act duly served upon

SATYANARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

Housing Projects Ltd – [2012] 20 taxmann.com 587 – order pronounced on 01.03.2012 – HEAD NOTE – “Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue - Assessment year 2004- 05 - Assessee sold an immovable property and claimed capital loss after indexation - Commissioner had doubts about valuation and sale consideration received but he had not examined said aspect

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

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

263 for assessment year 2007-08 passed by the CIT by setting-aside the assessment. This means that there was valid reason and fresh material available with the AO to reopen the assessment. Thus, the ground no 1 of this appeal challenging the issuance of the notice U/s 148 of the Act has no force and this ground of appeal

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

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

263 for assessment year 2007-08 passed by the CIT by setting-aside the assessment. This means that there was valid reason and fresh material available with the AO to reopen the assessment. Thus, the ground no 1 of this appeal challenging the issuance of the notice U/s 148 of the Act has no force and this ground of appeal

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1) RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

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

263 for assessment year 2007-08 passed by the CIT by setting-aside the assessment. This means that there was valid reason and fresh material available with the AO to reopen the assessment. Thus, the ground no 1 of this appeal challenging the issuance of the notice U/s 148 of the Act has no force and this ground of appeal

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

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

263 for assessment year 2007-08 passed by the CIT by setting-aside the assessment. This means that there was valid reason and fresh material available with the AO to reopen the assessment. Thus, the ground no 1 of this appeal challenging the issuance of the notice U/s 148 of the Act has no force and this ground of appeal

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

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

263 for assessment year 2007-08 passed by the CIT by setting-aside the assessment. This means that there was valid reason and fresh material available with the AO to reopen the assessment. Thus, the ground no 1 of this appeal challenging the issuance of the notice U/s 148 of the Act has no force and this ground of appeal

M/S. RAJDHANI LAND & HOUSING CORPORATION,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed and

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2007-08 M/S Rajdhani Land & Pr. Cit-1, Housing Corporation, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aahfr4618J Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal & Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ars Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.08.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’ For Short) By Ld. Pr. Cit-1 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 20.09.2019. Rajdhani Land & Housing

property, copy of which was also placed on record before Ld. AD. [PB 68-72] B.Ld. AO based on the documentary evidences placed on record allowed the claim of the assessee u/s BO(IB)(10} of Rs. 1,11,55,537. One of the plausible views was taken by the Ld. AO based on documentary evidences, applicable

M/S ROCKBED RENOVATORS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirockbed Renovators Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 7-A, Panjabi Bagh Raisen Road Bhopal Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7151G Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2024

property and construction of residential house on the said land. The AO, thereafter issued notice under section 142(1) dated 14.07.2017 along with a questionnaire. These facts are also evident from the assessment order in para 1 and 2 as under :- " Thereafter, the case was transferred to the office of the undersigned from the ITO Ward 4(1) Jaipur

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

property owned by appellant with his wife Smt. Sumitra Borad. There was a house on AS-28 and AH-29 was vacate. That initially the entire payment for Shaligram Borad construction of the original house was made by the appellant duly shown as the investment in the house in the balance sheet. During financial year 2014-15 relevant

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

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 263

ANAMIKA GARG ,DEWAS vs. CIT, UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Anamika Garg, Pcit, 117, Tukoganj Marg, Ujjain बनाम/ Nayapura, Vs. Dewas (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aiwpg 3922 D Assessee By Shri Suresh Gupta, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

revision-order dated 21.03.2020 passed by learned Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ujjain [“PCIT”] u/s 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] which in turn arises out assessment-order dated 21.03.2020 passed by learned DCIT, Circle-1(1), Ujjain [“AO”], the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds raised in Appeal-Memo (Form No. 36). 2. Heard

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

property and construction of residential house on the said land. The AO, thereafter issued notice under section 142(1) dated Page 20 of 29 Maa Narmada Agrotech and Infratures Ltd. Page 21 of 29 14.07.2017 along with a questionnaire. These facts are also evident from the assessment order in para 1 and 2 as under :- " Thereafter, the case was transferred

DILIP CHANDRASENRO MAHADIK,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Dilip Chandrasenrao Pr.Cit-2, Mahadik, Indore. बनाम/ 479, Kalani Nagar, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abwpm3141M Assessee By S/Shri Rajnish Vohra, Chetan Khandelwal & Nitesh Dawira, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023

House property u/s 54 Rs. 84,21,000/- (65,00,000/- plus 19,21,000) 7,00,000/- (Round off) cost of Repair” [Emphasis added] 5. However, the PCIT was not satisfied with the reply of assessee for the reasons mentioned by him in revision-order as under: “4. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the assessment

ATUL KUMAR ANCHALIA,JAORA vs. PCIT-1 , INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

Revision order dated 07.03.2022 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore-1, passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2017-18. 2 I.TA No. 63/IND/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No Atul Kumar Anchalia. vs. PCIT 2. The brief facts of the case

SHRI KHALID AMAN,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Khalid Aman, Pr. Cit-2 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aarpa 4443 L Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2023

263 and the assessee has also filed enough details/documents in response thereto which is very much evident from the following details/documents forming part of assessment-record available with the department; or (ii) some issues were not at all a part of the domain of Ld. AO: (i) Issue No. 1 – The assessee had purchased following properties for inadequate consideration, which

HASSANAND KHEMLANI,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1 ,INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the income tax act should be dropped. We assure your good self to furnish any further information or details as may be required by you. ITA Nos. 138 & 110/Ind/2021 [Kalpana Jain & Hasanand Khemlani] Asst.Year.– 2016-17 - 13 - We have properly explained the deduction claimed u/s 54/54F in respect of both house properties