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

house at Mansab Manzil, Karbala Bhopal which attract section 22, but the Ld. AO has not made enquiries: Ld. AR made same pleadings as for Issue No. 2. (v) Issue No. 5 – There are many cash-deposit entries appearing in the bank which have not been enquired into at all by assessing officer: Ld. AR carried us to Paper Book

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

property already took place on 07.01.2011. The seized document is entirely silent about the 9 IT(SS) No.30 & 31/Ind/2023 ITA (SS) No.305/Ind/2023 Shailendra Sharma transaction whether it is a payment or receipt. The addition made by the A.O in respect of other notings in the seized document has been deleted by the CIT(A) in para No. 3.6.2 as under

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

Appeal is allowed

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

2 units remaining uncompleted were part and parcel of the entire housing project and did not constitute either a separate housing project or a separate block. Ld. AO further observed that the section 80-IB(10) allows deduction only if the entire housing project is completed within the specified time and since in the present-case, the assessee had completed

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

Appeal is allowed

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

2 units remaining uncompleted were part and parcel of the entire housing project and did not constitute either a separate housing project or a separate block. Ld. AO further observed that the section 80-IB(10) allows deduction only if the entire housing project is completed within the specified time and since in the present-case, the assessee had completed

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

Appeal is allowed

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

2 units remaining uncompleted were part and parcel of the entire housing project and did not constitute either a separate housing project or a separate block. Ld. AO further observed that the section 80-IB(10) allows deduction only if the entire housing project is completed within the specified time and since in the present-case, the assessee had completed

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

Appeal is allowed

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

2 units remaining uncompleted were part and parcel of the entire housing project and did not constitute either a separate housing project or a separate block. Ld. AO further observed that the section 80-IB(10) allows deduction only if the entire housing project is completed within the specified time and since in the present-case, the assessee had completed

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

Appeal is allowed

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

2 units remaining uncompleted were part and parcel of the entire housing project and did not constitute either a separate housing project or a separate block. Ld. AO further observed that the section 80-IB(10) allows deduction only if the entire housing project is completed within the specified time and since in the present-case, the assessee had completed

SMT ANUPAMA ASSWA,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकर अपील सं. / I.T.A. No. 59/Ind/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Smt. Anupama Asawa, Pcit-I, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs.

house property and not allowable for investment in Plot. Therefore, total under assessment of income is Rs. 1,77,21,919/- (Rs. 91,35,500/- and Rs. 85,86,419/-). 3.3 Thus, during the course of assessment proceedings, you have neither furnished any details nor explained the issues involved with relevant documentary evidence with regard to issues narrated above

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

151 taxmann.com 71 and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that it was not open to the Pr. CIT while exercising suo motu revisional power under section 263 of the Act to find fault with the assessment order of the AO on the ground of its being erroneous on an issue which was not subject matter

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, 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

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold and silver

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

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold and silver

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

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold and silver

SHANKAR SEWANI,NEW MARKET vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, AAYKAR BHAWAN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Shankar Sewani, Dcit-1(1), 10 Kala Niketan, Bhopal New Market, Vs. T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adkps6959H Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2024 O R D E R

house property, profit & gains from business & profession, short term capital gains, long term capital gains and income from other sources. No scrutiny assessment has been made in the case of the assessee. During the course of search operation in Signature group conducted by Investigation Wing, Bhopal, certain loose papers pages no. 41-43 of LPS- 65 were seized from

DCIT-CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL vs. M/S SINGNATURE COLONISERS, BHOPAL

In the result, both the departmental appeals i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Abxfs 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Accfs 9498 Q … Respondent

2. LPS 72 Page 43-46: This is an unsigned draft of an agreement between Simran Reality & the assessee Signature Colonisers in which date of agreement is mentioned as 11.12.2013. Prior to the making of the draft (dated 11.12.2013), the assessee had given an payment of Rs. 60 lacs on 30.11.2013 & 02.12.2013. However while finalising the terms and conditions

DCIT,CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL vs. M/S SIGNATURE BUILDERS AND COLONISER, BHOPAL

In the result, both the departmental appeals i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Abxfs 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Accfs 9498 Q … Respondent

2. LPS 72 Page 43-46: This is an unsigned draft of an agreement between Simran Reality & the assessee Signature Colonisers in which date of agreement is mentioned as 11.12.2013. Prior to the making of the draft (dated 11.12.2013), the assessee had given an payment of Rs. 60 lacs on 30.11.2013 & 02.12.2013. However while finalising the terms and conditions

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

2 Backward A 20 5 3 Backward B 15 7 4 Backward C 10 10 The amount of assistance would not exceed fixed capital investment. Industries in I.T. Sector would get said assistance only in IT parks and not elsewhere. Eligible industries will be entitled for capital investment subsidy and interest subsidy along with industrial investment promotion assistance scheme

RADHA SHARAN GOSWAMI,BHOPAL vs. DDIT,CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniradha Sharan Goswami Ddit, Cpc B-18, Industrial Area Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adzpg1806E Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.05.2024

House property of Rs 94,76,461, the gross rent of the two let out properties of the appellant are taken into consideration. From the computation of income, its evident that, gross rents of both properties are Rs 19,50,916 and Rs 69,77,485 which sums up at Rs 89,28,401. Hence, the appellant can be granted

AJIT BONDRIYA,LIMASSOL, CYPRUS vs. ITO 2(5), BHOPAL, BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

House, DR\nBhopal\nAnnie Besant Road Worli\nबनाम\nMumbai-400018\n/Vs.\n(Appellant / Assessee)\n(Respondent / Revenue)\nPAN: AKSPB7252M\nAssessee by\nShri S.S. Deshpande, AR\nRevenue by\nShri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR\nDate of Hearing\n18.08.2025\nDate of Pronouncement\n22.08.2025\nORDER\nPer B.M. Biyani, AM:\nFeeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 07.05.2025 passed by\nlearned Commissioner of Income