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

THE ACIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR SETHI, INDORE

In the result appeal filed by the revenue being I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

133(6) or by issuing summon VIS 131 to any of the creditors which is evident from the, assessment order itself. Moreover, it is also clear from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer had never asked the assessee to produce the creditors. Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 17.As per requirement of Section 68 the sum credited

THE ACIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR SETHI, INDORE

In the result appeal filed by the revenue being I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

133(6) or by issuing summon VIS 131 to any of the creditors which is evident from the, assessment order itself. Moreover, it is also clear from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer had never asked the assessee to produce the creditors. Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 17.As per requirement of Section 68 the sum credited

SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR SETHI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result appeal filed by the revenue being I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

133(6) or by issuing summon VIS 131 to any of the creditors which is evident from the, assessment order itself. Moreover, it is also clear from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer had never asked the assessee to produce the creditors. Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 17.As per requirement of Section 68 the sum credited

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

133(6( cannot be attributed to the assessee for making the disallowance of claim or doubt the claim. 5.7 There is another aspect in this case regarding impugned order passed by the Pr. CIT when giving concluding finding is not sustainable without outcome of the inquiry conducted by the AO is available on record. It is pertinent to refer

DY. CIT -1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE

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

House, 5 Yashwant Niwas Colony, Indore PAN : AAACF1246Q : Appellant Revenue by Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr.DR Assessee by S/Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Kapil Shah, CAs Date of Hearing 09.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement 14.10.2020 Agrawal Transport Corporation (P) Ltd & Ors ITA Nos. 651, C.O.No.35/Ind/2019, 331/Ind/2018 & 895/Ind/2019 O R D E R PER BENCH The above captioned appeals filed at the instances

M/S AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD.,INDORE vs. THEDCIT 1(1) , INDORE, INDORE

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

House, 5 Yashwant Niwas Colony, Indore PAN : AAACF1246Q : Appellant Revenue by Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr.DR Assessee by S/Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Kapil Shah, CAs Date of Hearing 09.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement 14.10.2020 Agrawal Transport Corporation (P) Ltd & Ors ITA Nos. 651, C.O.No.35/Ind/2019, 331/Ind/2018 & 895/Ind/2019 O R D E R PER BENCH The above captioned appeals filed at the instances

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AVILABLE FINANCE LTD., INDORE

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

House, 5 Yashwant Niwas Colony, Indore PAN : AAACF1246Q : Appellant Revenue by Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr.DR Assessee by S/Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Kapil Shah, CAs Date of Hearing 09.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement 14.10.2020 Agrawal Transport Corporation (P) Ltd & Ors ITA Nos. 651, C.O.No.35/Ind/2019, 331/Ind/2018 & 895/Ind/2019 O R D E R PER BENCH The above captioned appeals filed at the instances

INCOME TAX OFFICER -5(1), INDORE vs. SHRI ASHISH KUMAR BHATIA, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act: “2.1 Remand report submitted by the AO "The assesses Shri Ashish Kumar Bhatia, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 26.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 2,20,330/-. Assessee derives income ITO vs. Shri Ashish Kumar Bhatia Asst.Year –2014-15 - 4 – from salary, income from house property and income from other

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

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

House wife 7 Shri Dharmendra Rathore Rs.15000/- Cash Self employed Younger brother 8 Self Saving Rs.25000/- Cash Rs.4,10,000/- 2.11 Having gone through the facts of the case, submissions filed by the assessee, information called for u/s 133(6) from the purchaser Shri Rajesh Rathore and his statement recorded u/s 131 of the 'Act', it is evident that sale

ACIT CENTRAL-2 INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI .GAURAV TEKRIWAL, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

133(6) and in response, Shri Deepesh Khandelwal filed detailed reply with documentary evidences. The AO then simply reached to the conclusion that the appellant had never been the tenant in the said property without specifying or bringing on record her basis for reaching to such conclusion. I find that it is not the case Page 12 of 38 Shri

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

133(6) of the Act however, Ld AO neither made any independent enquiry subsequent to their filing of Affidavits retracting the statements nor Ld.AO provided any opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee. 13.4 Learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that during the course of the assessment proceedings, it was submitted before the AO that in respect

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

133(6) of the Act however, Ld AO neither made any independent enquiry subsequent to their filing of Affidavits retracting the statements nor Ld.AO provided any opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee. 13.4 Learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that during the course of the assessment proceedings, it was submitted before the AO that in respect

CHIRAYU CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,BHOPAL vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradchirayu Charitable Pcit (Central), Foundation,Bhopal Indore Bhopal Highway, Bhaisakhedi, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aaaac3656P Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Advocate, Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar, Advs Date Of Hearing 05.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement .02.2021 O R D E R Per Manish Borad, Am.

133(6) of the Act which was Chirayu Charitable Foundation duly complied that the donor have confirmed to have given donation to the assessee. 35. Our finding with regard to the alleged donations received by which prima facie shows that the donors are not fictitious, secondly donors are trust or institutions having sufficient funds to give donations and in some

SHRI SHIV CHARAN SINGH BAIS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO WD-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

133 TTJ 64 ITAT,(Tribunal).” In support of contention that exemption u/s 54 would be available even if the construction within statutory period, where the entire sale consideration is interested in purchase of land/construction of house. 6. On the contrary Ld. DR opposed the submission and submitted that case law would not support the case of the assessee

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

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

6 The IESM Academy [PAN: AAEFT4206F] – Addition of Rs. 32,00,000/- 6.1 Copy of ledger account of the creditor in the books of the assessee 133- 134 6.2 Copy of ledger account of the assessee in the books of the creditor 135- 136 6.3 Copy of acknowledgment of income-tax return along with computation of 137- Sanjay Lunawat

M/S BALAJEE STERLING BUILDER,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both of the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

6. The above discussion clearly shows that the appellant firm developed the project 'Sterling Hill View' and the project meets all the parameters of section 801B(10) and hence the deduction claimed should not have been disallowed. It is respectfully submitted that the ground of appeal number 1 raised by the appellant firm may kindly be allowed and the addition

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT-CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 133(6) that the company is not having any revenue from sale of products during the subject year. In relation to the above allegations of the TPO, the Ld. AR submitted that from pages 767 to 770 of the paper-book, it is quite apparent that E-zest Solutions Limited is not just providing software development services

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 2(1) , INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 133(6) that the company is not having any revenue from sale of products during the subject year. In relation to the above allegations of the TPO, the Ld. AR submitted that from pages 767 to 770 of the paper-book, it is quite apparent that E-zest Solutions Limited is not just providing software development services