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

158 of the paper book, that in such bank statement, the receipt of a sum of Rs. 3,25,00,000/- by the appellant from M/s.Khandelwa] chambers, in six trenches, is getting clearly reflected. 4.3.6 I find substance in the contention of the appellant that the veracity and genuineness of the said MOU can also be adjudged from a very

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

158/- and Rs. 6,65,46,869/- respectively. During the course of assessment proceedings neither the assessee company filed the details regarding trade payables and trade receivables nor the assessing officer conducted any enquiry/investigation regarding t trade payables and trade receivables. 03.3 On perusal of the P&L account of the assessee company for the period under consideration

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 found there is only boundary wall with gate and on whole land there was little construction, with walls and Tin shed roofing and construction is about 700-800 Sq.ft as against 1504 Sq.ft. construction claimed by assessee. The Ld. A.O. in assessment order gave scanned photographs stated to have been taken by Inpsector on site visit. Page

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

property and found there is only boundary wall with gate and on whole land there was little construction, with walls and Tin shed roofing and construction is about 700-800 Sq.ft as against 1504 Sq.ft. construction claimed by assessee. The Ld. A.O. in assessment order gave scanned photographs stated to have been taken by Inpsector on site visit

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

section 263 is not permitted to substitute his estimate of income in place of the income estimated by the Assessing Officer. (vii) The Assessing Officer exercises quasi-judicial power vested in him and if he exercises such power in accordance with law and arrive at a conclusion, such conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the Commissioner

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

SHRI SURESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

158 14. The Ld. DR raised objection of the cash purchase of shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 and that the shares were dematted subsequent to such purchase. He further relied upon the order passed by Delhi High Court in the matter of Udit Kalra Vs ITO passed on 8.3.2019 in ITA No.220/19. In effect

SMT. RUKMANI KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

158 14. The Ld. DR raised objection of the cash purchase of shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 and that the shares were dematted subsequent to such purchase. He further relied upon the order passed by Delhi High Court in the matter of Udit Kalra Vs ITO passed on 8.3.2019 in ITA No.220/19. In effect

RADHESHYAM KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ACIT4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

158 14. The Ld. DR raised objection of the cash purchase of shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 and that the shares were dematted subsequent to such purchase. He further relied upon the order passed by Delhi High Court in the matter of Udit Kalra Vs ITO passed on 8.3.2019 in ITA No.220/19. In effect

SMT. SANDHYA KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

158 14. The Ld. DR raised objection of the cash purchase of shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 and that the shares were dematted subsequent to such purchase. He further relied upon the order passed by Delhi High Court in the matter of Udit Kalra Vs ITO passed on 8.3.2019 in ITA No.220/19. In effect

MOHANLAL KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

158 14. The Ld. DR raised objection of the cash purchase of shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 and that the shares were dematted subsequent to such purchase. He further relied upon the order passed by Delhi High Court in the matter of Udit Kalra Vs ITO passed on 8.3.2019 in ITA No.220/19. In effect

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

House property). That the aforesaid assessment order is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. In the “impugned assessment order” issuance of a penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A(1)/ 270A(9)(a) of the Act was contemplated too. 2.2 That as and by way of an order (penalty) passed u/s 270A of the Act i.e. “Misreporting penalty

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

House property). That the\naforesaid assessment order is hereinafter referred to as the\n“impugned assessment order”. In the “impugned assessment\norder" issuance of a penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s.270A(1)/\n270A(9)(a) of the Act was contemplated too.\n2.2 That as and by way of an order (penalty) passed u/s 270A of\nthe Act i.e. “Misreporting penalty

BADAM SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO 4(1) , BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshibadam Singh, Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ 392 Gram Palasi, 4(1), Vs. New Jail Road, Bhopal Karond, Bhopal (Pan: Drhps5664B) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

section 54F 8. since the appellant had constructed residential house out of the F sale proceeds which is not considered by the CIT Appeals whilst passing the appellant order. Ground 9 That the appellant craves leave to add to amend alter modify substitute withdrawal delete or rescind all or any of the above grounds of appeal on or before

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

Section 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

M/S SURJEET AUTO AGENCY ,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-2, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2015-16 M/S Surjeet Auto Agency, Pr. Cit-2, 4-5, Lajpat Nagar, Raisen Bhopal बनाम/ Road, Apsara Cinema, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aatfs 4110J Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Piush Parasar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2021 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-2 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 04.02.2020.The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

158 and the submissions made before both the lower authorities regarding each issues stated that: a) As regards the reason “low income shown by large contractors” it was submitted that the assessee is basically a trader and authorized dealer of M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd. and is not a large contractor. Being authorized dealer of reputed Auto Company of its sales

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

158 Pvt. Ltd. 50,00,000 28,50,000 7,85,000 10. Amber Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. AVPL 3,403 - 86,066 - 23,00,000 2,29,998 11. Auckland Trading Pvt. ATPL - - Ltd. - 30,00,000 1,22,131 2,99,999 12. Avishkar Dealers Pvt. Ltd. ADPL 89,999 - 32,787 - 10,00,000 99,998 13. Bandana

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

158 Pvt. Ltd. 50,00,000 28,50,000 7,85,000 10. Amber Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. AVPL 3,403 - 86,066 - 23,00,000 2,29,998 11. Auckland Trading Pvt. ATPL - - Ltd. - 30,00,000 1,22,131 2,99,999 12. Avishkar Dealers Pvt. Ltd. ADPL 89,999 - 32,787 - 10,00,000 99,998 13. Bandana

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

158-160]\nNov 2022\nAssessee has filed application before\nthe Hon'ble DRT praying for the\nquashment of sale proceeding of his\nhouse attached by the bank.\nCopy of the Application is\nenclosed. [PB 161-162]\nDec 2022 to\n2023\nApplication for Intervention filed by\nthe appellant's mother to save his\nvaluable immovable property.\nThereafter the appellant has filed