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

263 of the Act. 18. As regard the remaining issue of deduction u/s 54F(1) of the Act for the investment in construction of House at Rs.43,31,991/-, we find that the assessee apart from owning one flat also held another house at AH-28 & 29 which was a joint property owned by appellant with his wife Smt. Sumitra

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

property and construction of residential house on the said land. The AO, thereafter issued notice under section 142(1) dated Page 20 of 29 Maa Narmada Agrotech and Infratures Ltd. Page 21 of 29 14.07.2017 along with a questionnaire. These facts are also evident from the assessment order in para 1 and 2 as under :- " Thereafter, the case was transferred

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

Housing Projects Ltd. (supra) coupled with the fact that the assessee during the assessment proceedings had submitted evidences in support of sale of jewelleries and receipt of gift. Moreover, the issue of examination of source of gift was not subject matter of the scrutiny. Therefore, the decision of the Ld. CIT invoking provisions of section 263

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

section 263. 4.Order u/s 263 was passed by Ld. Pr.ClT on 14.03.2016. Against this order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Bench vide ITA No. 475/lnd/2016. Hon'ble Bench set aside the matter to the file of Ld. Pr.CIT directing to decide the matter after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee vide its order pronounced

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 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

263 of the Act. He has submitted that the Pr. CIT has relied upon the Page 9 of 21 Bhawani Shankar Page 10 of 21 judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works 231 ITR 53 (SC) and therefore the impugned order is proper invalid. He has relied upon the impugned

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:-

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

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

263 and the assessee has also filed enough details/documents in response thereto which is very much evident from the following details/documents forming part of assessment-record available with the department; or (ii) some issues were not at all a part of the domain of Ld. AO: (i) Issue No. 1 – The assessee had purchased following properties for inadequate consideration, which

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

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

house property along with land appurtenant thereto, hence there is no question in respect deduction u/s 54/54F. With due humble request it is submitted to your honour that we have exchanged property at Rs. 7,64,60,000/- adopted by the stamp authority, which is full value consideration for both the parties. Because properties are not exchanged below the value

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

house property along with land appurtenant thereto, hence there is no question in respect deduction u/s 54/54F. With due humble request it is submitted to your honour that we have exchanged property at Rs. 7,64,60,000/- adopted by the stamp authority, which is full value consideration for both the parties. Because properties are not exchanged below the value

ANAMIKA GARG ,DEWAS vs. CIT, UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Anamika Garg, Pcit, 117, Tukoganj Marg, Ujjain बनाम/ Nayapura, Vs. Dewas (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aiwpg 3922 D Assessee By Shri Suresh Gupta, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

house property, capital gain and other sources, which was assessed by AO u/s 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 42,17,604/- after making certain disallowance/addition. Subsequently, Ld. PCIT examined the record of assessment-proceeding and viewed that the assessment-order passed by AO is erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest

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

house out of the total sale consideration of his immovable property of Rs. 42,00,000/-. However, the stamp duty value of the sold property at the time of transfer was Rs. 58,66,100/- and in terms of the provisions of section 50C of IT Act, the full value of sale consideration was taken

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

263, and non-mentioning of these reasons do not render the assessment order "erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue". [Emphasis supplied] Therefore, the PCIT is wrong in terming AO’s order as erroneous-cum- prejudicial on the basis that the AO has not made investigation. 14. Now, what remains to be checked is a limited point

NEERA KOTWANI,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

263. The reasons of framing such a view, as culled out fromshow-cause notice dated 11.09.2019 issued by Ld. PCIT, are two-fold as under: (i) The assessee had claimed exemption of Rs. 52,53,008/- u/s 54F despite being owner of 4 residential house properties on the date of transfer of original asset (i.e. relinquishment of right) from which

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

property chargeable under section 22. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, an urban consumers' co- operative society means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area, or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee is entitled also to the deduction under section

IMRAN KHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO2 (2), BHYOPAL

In the result the issue No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradimran Khan Ito 2(2) S/O Sh. Gulab Khan H. No.35 Bhopal Village-Inayatpura Kolar Board, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ckqpk5708M Assessee By Shri Niranjan Purandar Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.01.2024

property.” 5.2 Thus it was found by the Hon’ble High Court that the investment was made by the wife of the assessee and therefore, to that extent the title is also vested in the name of the wife. In case in hand, we find that the entire payments for purchase of new land has been made by the assessee