M/S SANGHVI FOODS P LTD, ,INDORE vs. ITO (IT & TP) , BHOPAL

In the result common issue raised in

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

House, A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) PAN AACCS4128C Appellant by S/Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, CAs Revenue by Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement 03.06.2020 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned appeals filed at the instance of assessee pertaining to Assessment Year

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

house. In view of the requirement of Section 54F of the Act, the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not justified. We are fortified in the above view by the decision of the Delhi High Court in Balmj v. CIT to the effect that for the purpose of attracting the provision, it was not necessary that

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

1,06,99,464/- for A.Y. 10-11 and Rs. 3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics

M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

1,06,99,464/- for A.Y. 10-11 and Rs. 3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

1,06,99,464/- for A.Y. 10-11 and Rs. 3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics

THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

1,06,99,464/- for A.Y. 10-11 and Rs. 3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

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

201 (sq.ft addition to 3- MPEB developm charges 3- .) the sale 14] deposit ent per sq.ft 14] considerat account charges ion in AY (Rs.) account 2013-14 (Rs.) (Rs.) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) = (E-G) (I) =(G/D) (J) 1 Meeta 421 8200 40,40,000 44, 2,87,000 13,94,000 170 228 Rajesh

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

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

201 (sq.ft addition to 3- MPEB developm charges 3- .) the sale 14] deposit ent per sq.ft 14] considerat account charges ion in AY (Rs.) account 2013-14 (Rs.) (Rs.) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) = (E-G) (I) =(G/D) (J) 1 Meeta 421 8200 40,40,000 44, 2,87,000 13,94,000 170 228 Rajesh

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

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

housing projects later on. In the affidavit filed by the sellers at PB 337-339, they have clearly stated that they were not much aware of the assessee company and therefore the transaction was done in cash. Thus, the payment was made in cash, as the parties demanded the payment in cash. He relied on the case of Gurdas Garg

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

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

housing projects later on. In the affidavit filed by the sellers at PB 337-339, they have clearly stated that they were not much aware of the assessee company and therefore the transaction was done in cash. Thus, the payment was made in cash, as the parties demanded the payment in cash. He relied on the case of Gurdas Garg

M/S BHOPAL DUGDH SANGH SAHAKARI MY.DAIRY PLANT, BHOPAL vs. DCIT -1 (1) ,BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani

Housing Corporation Ltd (2015) 60 taxmann.com 493, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held as under: “2.1 At the outset, it is required to noted and it is not disputed by Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue that the issue involved in the present Tax Appeal and the proposed substantial questions

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

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

house-property, business / profession and interest. In the return, the assessee also declared a long-term capital gain of Rs. 66,28,161/- earned from sale of equity shares of Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd. exempted u/s 10(38) of the act. The assessee claimed to have purchased shares of Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd. for Rs. 33,418/-; sold

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

house-property, business / profession and interest. In the return, the assessee also declared a long-term capital gain of Rs. 90,69,199/- from sale of equity shares of Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd. exempted u/s 10(38) of the act. The assessee claimed to have purchased shares of Lifeline Drugs and Pharma

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, LOCATION

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

201-19 to 2021-22, ) Shri Anil Dhakad DCIT 227, Saket Nagar Central-I Vs. Indore Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: ABHPD1501B Assessee by Shri P.D. Nagar, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 29.04.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These four appeals by assessee are directed against

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

201-19 to 2021-22, ) Shri Anil Dhakad DCIT 227, Saket Nagar Central-I Vs. Indore Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: ABHPD1501B Assessee by Shri P.D. Nagar, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 29.04.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These four appeals by assessee are directed against

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

201-19 to 2021-22, ) Shri Anil Dhakad DCIT 227, Saket Nagar Central-I Vs. Indore Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: ABHPD1501B Assessee by Shri P.D. Nagar, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 29.04.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These four appeals by assessee are directed against

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. AASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

201-19 to 2021-22, ) Shri Anil Dhakad DCIT 227, Saket Nagar Central-I Vs. Indore Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: ABHPD1501B Assessee by Shri P.D. Nagar, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 29.04.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These four appeals by assessee are directed against

SHRI HEMANT PANDYA ,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(2), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Hemant Pandya, Ito-3(2), बनाम/ 139, Prabhu Nagar, Bhopal Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Ajgpp 7486 G Assessee By Shri V.N. Dubey, Shri Ibrahim Kannodwala, Adv. & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.05.2023

section 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2009-10, the assessee has filed the grounds as mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36). 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case- records perused. Page 1 of 14 Shri Hemant Pandya Assessment year 2009-10 3. Brief facts leading