SANKALP SAKH SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,MANDSAUR vs. THE PCIT-1 , INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisankalp Sakh Sahkari Pr. Cit-1 Sanstha Maryadit Indore 1, C/O Smriti Nagrik Sahkari Vs. Bank Dayamandir Road Goshala Market, Mandsaur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaeas0312G Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2024

71,586/- and stationery and printing expenses at Rs. 28,450/-. Both the lower authorities have held that the incidental expenses claimed are in the nature of business expenditure and needs to be allowed against business receipts and have also observed that FDR interest being income from other sources is not eligible for deduction

MP STATE COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ACIT BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal for A

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

71,586/- and stationery and printing expenses at Rs. 28,450/-. Both the lower authorities have held that the incidental expenses claimed are in the nature of business expenditure and needs to be allowed against business receipts and have also observed that FDR interest being income from other sources is not eligible for deduction

MP STATE CO-OPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal for A

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

71,586/- and stationery and printing expenses at Rs. 28,450/-. Both the lower authorities have held that the incidental expenses claimed are in the nature of business expenditure and needs to be allowed against business receipts and have also observed that FDR interest being income from other sources is not eligible for deduction

THE PR CIT-1 , BHOPAL vs. BHOPAL DUGDH SANGH SAHAKARI MY., BYHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanipr. Cit-1 Bhopal Dugdh Sangh Sahakari Bhopal Maryadit Diary Plant, Near Habibganj Vs. Railway Station Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Aaaab0221D

71,586/- and stationery and printing expenses at Rs. 28,450/-. Both the lower authorities have held that the incidental expenses claimed are in the nature of business expenditure and needs to be allowed against business receipts and have also observed that FDR interest being income from other sources is not eligible for deduction

INDORE PRAGATISHIL SAHAKARI SAKH SANSTHA MARYADIT,INDORE vs. NFAC, DELHI, INDORE

Appeal stand allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2018-19 Indore Pragatishil Income Tax Department, Sahakari Sakh Sanstha Nfa, बनाम/ Maryadit, Delhi Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaaai3124L Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2024

71,586/- and stationery and printing expenses at Rs. 28,450/-. Both the lower authorities have held that the incidental expenses claimed are in the nature of business expenditure and needs to be allowed against business receipts and have also observed that FDR interest being income from other sources is not eligible for deduction

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

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

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

2,71,830 Total 9,15,640 22. Being aggrieved, the assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A) who having gone through the facts/circumstances, material and submissions thereof deleted the addition. The relevant portion of the order of the ld. CIT(A) are reproduced hereunder: “6] GROUND No 7 6.1] The assessee in this

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

71 to the Departmental Valuation Officer. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Hon'ble Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore- 1, Indore had erred in ignoring that the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) can be invoked only where sale consideration on sale of immovable property is less than stamp duty valuation. Therefore

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

71 to the Departmental Valuation Officer. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Hon'ble Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore- 1, Indore had erred in ignoring that the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) can be invoked only where sale consideration on sale of immovable property is less than stamp duty valuation. Therefore

M/S. RAJDHANI LAND & HOUSING CORPORATION,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed and

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2007-08 M/S Rajdhani Land & Pr. Cit-1, Housing Corporation, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aahfr4618J Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal & Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ars Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.08.2021 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-1 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 20.09.2019. Rajdhani Land & Housing

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the finding of the Ld. Pr. CIT that “since no proper enquiries regarding completion of housing project has been made by the AO the order is prejudicial to the interest of revenue” are wholly wrong and unjustified and, therefore, such findings be quashed

DILIP CHANDRASENRO MAHADIK,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Dilip Chandrasenrao Pr.Cit-2, Mahadik, Indore. बनाम/ 479, Kalani Nagar, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abwpm3141M Assessee By S/Shri Rajnish Vohra, Chetan Khandelwal & Nitesh Dawira, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023

house for Rs. 2,02,15,584/- on 19.08.2016, thus assessee has invested in new residential property more than the sale consideration adopted by the stamp duty valuation authorities, hence LTCG if worked out as per the provisions of section 50C the entire LTCG will be available to the assessee as exempt; therefore, there is no need to work

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is reproduced as under: (47) Transfer in relation to a capital asset includes Any transaction involving the allowing of the possession of any immovable property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property

SHRI SHALIGRAM BAROD, ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

2 FDR’s as prepared for Rs 46,13,000/- was on account of capital gain scheme or not was not examined by the assessing officer 3 Deduction as claimed for construction of House was not correct for Rs 43,31,991/-. 13. While completing the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act Ld. Pr. CIT was satisfied with the assessee

DCIT , CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S VENUS ENTERPRISES , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

Section 153A/143(3) dated 31.3.2015, 31.3.2015, 31.3.2015 & 25.2.2016, respectively. Both the parties submitted that the lead case is Ajitnath Reality P. Ltd. and the decision taken for the assessment year 2009-10 will be applicable in the present group appeals as the same are also having identical facts and issue. Thus, we shall take up the case of Ajitnath Reality

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. VENUS ENTERPRISES, INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

Section 153A/143(3) dated 31.3.2015, 31.3.2015, 31.3.2015 & 25.2.2016, respectively. Both the parties submitted that the lead case is Ajitnath Reality P. Ltd. and the decision taken for the assessment year 2009-10 will be applicable in the present group appeals as the same are also having identical facts and issue. Thus, we shall take up the case of Ajitnath Reality

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 92C(3) of the Act, read with the Rules. It would, among other aspects, refer to the method adopted and whether reliability and authenticity of the arm's length determination is affected or corrupted. 83. We now proceed to examine the TNM Method, whether there is prohibition in applying this method on entity to entity basis

SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN CHUORSIYA,RAJGARH vs. THE PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Krishna Mohan Pr. Cit Choursiya(Prop. Of M/S Laxmi Ujjain Mp बनाम/ Auto Parts) Vs. Ward No.14, Bus Stand, Kurawar Rajgarh(M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aempc3634G

property reported in ITR The case of the appellant was subsequently converted into complete scrutiny vide approval letter dated 06-12-2016 from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ujjain. Consequently an assessment order dated 28-12- 2016 was passed under section 143[3] of the Act assessing the total income of the appellant

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:-

Housing Projects Ltd – [2012] 20 taxmann.com 587(Delhi) Surjeet Auto Agency 8. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) referred to the finding of Ld. Pr. CIT and also decisions referred in the impugned order by the Ld. Pr. CIT and the same is mentioned below: 4. I have carefully consider d the facts of the case, the show cause notices