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

house developed software. The Ld. AR further submitted that the said company has developed its own software product for rendition of software services and has also incurred expenditure of Rs.83,80,045/- on research development on yearly basis. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that it is clearly evident that the said company is functionally not comparable to the assessee

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-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

house developed software. The Ld. AR further submitted that the said company has developed its own software product for rendition of software services and has also incurred expenditure of Rs.83,80,045/- on research development on yearly basis. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that it is clearly evident that the said company is functionally not comparable to the assessee

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. LIFE STYLE INFRATECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

x) That, no independent, corroborative, concrete, positive, tangible or adverse material whatsoever was found by authorities despite extensive search conducted on assessee by which it can be established that the assessee has recovered any extra-money on account of sale consideration or charges from buyers. The entire case made out by revenue is based on mere surmise and presumption

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

LATE SHRI BALKRISHAN JOSHI (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI BHOOPENDRA JOSHI),INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2008-09 Late Shri Balkrishan Joshi Income-Tax Officer, (Through L/H Shri 5(1), Bhoopendra Joshi), Indore बनाम/ 541, Alok Nagar, Vs. Kanadia Road, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abjpj 0180 C Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Bavesh Agrawal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.05.2024

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. This is the 2nd round of litigation by assessee before us. The background facts are such that the assessee filed return of income for AY 2008-09 on 31.07.2008 declaring a total income

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

X + IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “INDORE BENCH”, INDORE ] ] BEFORE SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.166, 167 and 168 /Ind/2016 Asstt.Year : 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-11 AND Asstt.Year 2011-12 Century 21 Malls P.Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ward-2(1) 731-732, Usha Nagar Indore. Extension Above Axis

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

X + IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “INDORE BENCH”, INDORE ] ] BEFORE SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.166, 167 and 168 /Ind/2016 Asstt.Year : 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-11 AND Asstt.Year 2011-12 Century 21 Malls P.Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ward-2(1) 731-732, Usha Nagar Indore. Extension Above Axis

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

X + IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “INDORE BENCH”, INDORE ] ] BEFORE SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.166, 167 and 168 /Ind/2016 Asstt.Year : 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-11 AND Asstt.Year 2011-12 Century 21 Malls P.Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ward-2(1) 731-732, Usha Nagar Indore. Extension Above Axis

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

X + IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “INDORE BENCH”, INDORE ] ] BEFORE SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.169&170/Ind/2016 WITH CROSS OBJECTION No.46 and 47/Ind/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09&2009-10 AND IT(SS)A.No.24/Ind/2017 Asst.Year : 2010-11 AND ITA No.25, 244, 309/Ind/2017& 441/Ind/2018 Asstt.Years

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

X + IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “INDORE BENCH”, INDORE ] ] BEFORE SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.169&170/Ind/2016 WITH CROSS OBJECTION No.46 and 47/Ind/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09&2009-10 AND IT(SS)A.No.24/Ind/2017 Asst.Year : 2010-11 AND ITA No.25, 244, 309/Ind/2017& 441/Ind/2018 Asstt.Years

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

X + IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “INDORE BENCH”, INDORE ] ] BEFORE SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.169&170/Ind/2016 WITH CROSS OBJECTION No.46 and 47/Ind/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09&2009-10 AND IT(SS)A.No.24/Ind/2017 Asst.Year : 2010-11 AND ITA No.25, 244, 309/Ind/2017& 441/Ind/2018 Asstt.Years

M/S AYUSH AJAY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. ,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-(1), INDORE

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Ayushajay Construction Pr.Cit-1, Private Limited, Indore. बनाम/ 3/3, South Tukoganj, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aacca 5523 B Assessee By Shri Prakash Jain & Ms. Shreya Jain, Cas Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.01.2024

X; therefore also the revision-order is patently wrong and unsustainable. 11. Per contra, Ld. DR for revenue supported the revision-order. She submitted that even if the AO has raised queries and received replies from assessee, mere raising queries and keeping response in the departmental file cannot be treated as conduct of enquiries by AO. According

SMT. SARLA JAIN,KHANDWA vs. ITO WARD 1 KHANDWA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sarla Jain, Ito, C/O Nakoda Marketing, Ward-1, बनाम/ Bhavani Mata Road, Khandwa Khandwa Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abvpj1316J Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2023

house property and also long term capital gain & same has been claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the I. T. Act was issued on 25.07.2016 and the same was served upon the assessee on 29.07.2016. A copy of the same is placed

MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. ACIT- (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

24,502.03 73,38,651/- 37,14,149/- Total 1,18,50,047/- 2,46,69,000/- 1,28,18,953/- In this regard, the assessee was show caused to explain the difference between the cost of investment declared by him and estimated by DVO during the assessment proceedings. In this regard, the assessee submitted the following reply: That Reference

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

24,502.03 73,38,651/- 37,14,149/- Total 1,18,50,047/- 2,46,69,000/- 1,28,18,953/- In this regard, the assessee was show caused to explain the difference between the cost of investment declared by him and estimated by DVO during the assessment proceedings. In this regard, the assessee submitted the following reply: That Reference

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

24,502.03 73,38,651/- 37,14,149/- Total 1,18,50,047/- 2,46,69,000/- 1,28,18,953/- In this regard, the assessee was show caused to explain the difference between the cost of investment declared by him and estimated by DVO during the assessment proceedings. In this regard, the assessee submitted the following reply: That Reference

THE A C I T CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL vs. S V INFRA DEVELOPERS, BHOPAL

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

property in cash. There was a sufficient cash balance available with the assessee. The statement of Shri Dinesh Lalwani is totally unreliable and no evidence has been put up to corroborate the evidence. The duplex flats were registered in January 2013 and the possession was handed over. There is no evidence to show that the assessee was asked to renovate

PRAGYA SAXENA,BHOPAL vs. PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Pragya Saxena Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Awfps 9685 L Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2023

2 of 10 Pragya Saxena Assessment year 2012-13 revenue, based on information obtained from AIR that the assessee had sold an immovable property for Rs. 58,66,100/- during the previous year relevant to AY 2012-13, made a preliminary enquiry vide letter dated 07.01.2019 from assessee with regard to the transaction. The assessee filed replies dated