THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

ii) On examination of stock register, purchase and sale records, it was observed that the sales have been booked as per his convenience. The figure of cash sales are suppressed so that the actual profit could be suppressed. iii) It is noted that in significant numbers, the credit in bank accounts does not commensurate with that of sale receipt

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

ii) On examination of stock register, purchase and sale records, it was observed that the sales have been booked as per his convenience. The figure of cash sales are suppressed so that the actual profit could be suppressed. iii) It is noted that in significant numbers, the credit in bank accounts does not commensurate with that of sale receipt

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

143(3) rws 147 for AY 2010-11. Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee along with other grounds raised the following grounds of appeal – a. Disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 3,52,94,416 and [PB 97, ground no. 3] b. Addition on concealment of fees of Rs. 69,70,505 [PB 98, ground no. 7] Ld. CIT(A) accepted

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

143(3) rws 147 for AY 2010-11. Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee along with other grounds raised the following grounds of appeal – a. Disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 3,52,94,416 and [PB 97, ground no. 3] b. Addition on concealment of fees of Rs. 69,70,505 [PB 98, ground no. 7] Ld. CIT(A) accepted

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

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

II (in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)], Indore dated 15.1.2018 which is arising out of the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the ‘Act’) dated 22.03.2013 framed by JCIT, Range-3, Indore. 2. Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) of the Act on 29.03.2014 by determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 4,71,42,454/-. Further that the Ld. AO re-characterised the income from operation of the mall as shown by the assessee in its computation of income under the head “Income from Business Profession” to the head “Income From House Properties

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) of the Act on 29.03.2014 by determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 4,71,42,454/-. Further that the Ld. AO re-characterised the income from operation of the mall as shown by the assessee in its computation of income under the head “Income from Business Profession” to the head “Income From House Properties

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3 (1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. ENTERTAINMENT AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) of the Act on 29.03.2014 by determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 4,71,42,454/-. Further that the Ld. AO re-characterised the income from operation of the mall as shown by the assessee in its computation of income under the head “Income from Business Profession” to the head “Income From House Properties

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) of the Act on 29.03.2014 by determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 4,71,42,454/-. Further that the Ld. AO re-characterised the income from operation of the mall as shown by the assessee in its computation of income under the head “Income from Business Profession” to the head “Income From House Properties

THE DCIT-2(1), INDORE vs. M/S. CENTURY 21 MALL (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

143(3) of the Act by making certain additions. Against these additions, the assessee went in appeal before the first appellate authority, but partly succeeded. Against decisions of the ld.CIT(A)both the Century 21 Malls P.Ltd Vs. ACIT (Indore Bench) – (9 Cross-Appeals) 3 Revenue and assessee are before the Tribunal. First we take up appeals for the Asst.Year

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S. CENTURE 21 MALL PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

143(3) of the Act by making certain additions. Against these additions, the assessee went in appeal before the first appellate authority, but partly succeeded. Against decisions of the ld.CIT(A)both the Century 21 Malls P.Ltd Vs. ACIT (Indore Bench) – (9 Cross-Appeals) 3 Revenue and assessee are before the Tribunal. First we take up appeals for the Asst.Year

M/S CENTURY 21 MALLS P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

143(3) of the Act by making certain additions. Against these additions, the assessee went in appeal before the first appellate authority, but partly succeeded. Against decisions of the ld.CIT(A)both the Century 21 Malls P.Ltd Vs. ACIT (Indore Bench) – (9 Cross-Appeals) 3 Revenue and assessee are before the Tribunal. First we take up appeals for the Asst.Year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

143(3) r.w. section 147 within a period of 10 days from the date of disposing of the objections of the assessee against the notice u/ 148 which is contrary to the procedure to be followed by the AO as directed by the Hon’ble High Court and consequently the impugned order is liable to be set aside. We order

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. 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

ii) M/s.Aggarwal Promoters v. Pr.CIT [1708/Chd/2017 - order dated 16.04.2019] ITA Chandigarh Benches. (iii) Sanjeev Kr. Khemka v. Pr.CIT [1361/Kol/2016 - order dated 02.06.2017] ITAT Kolkata Benches. (iv) M/s. R & H Property Developer Pvt.Ltd. v. Pr.CIT [1906/Mum/2019 - order dated 30.07.2019] ITAT Mumbai Benches. (v) Mrs.Sonali Hemant Bhavsar v. Pr.CIT [742/Mum/2019 - order dated 17.05.2019] ITAT Mumbai Benches. 11. We, therefore, respectfully following

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

MAHENDRA SINGH CHAWLA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

section 143(3) on the ground that new house purchased by the assessee is not registered in his name ignoring all the explanations and documents submitted before A.O.as well as before Ld. CIT(A) Ground. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the Indexed cost of purchase of property of Rs. 781853 and indexed cost of improvement

KALPANA JAIN,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

143(3), it is a transaction relating to transfer and acquisition of house property along with land appurtenant thereto, hence there is no question in respect deduction u/s 54/54F. With due humble request it is submitted to your honour that we have exchanged property at Rs. 7,64,60,000/- adopted by the stamp authority, which is full value consideration

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

143(3), it is a transaction relating to transfer and acquisition of house property along with land appurtenant thereto, hence there is no question in respect deduction u/s 54/54F. With due humble request it is submitted to your honour that we have exchanged property at Rs. 7,64,60,000/- adopted by the stamp authority, which is full value consideration