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

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

property, copy of which was also placed on record before Ld. AD. [PB 68-72] B.Ld. AO based on the documentary evidences placed on record allowed the claim of the assessee u/s BO(IB)(10} of Rs. 1,11,55,537. One of the plausible views was taken by the Ld. AO based on documentary evidences, applicable

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS ,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

36 (Appeal Memo) and accordingly claims that the present appeal has been filed within the prescribed period of 60 days. Shri Harsh Malhotra, partner of assessee-firm, has filed an affidavit on Page 146 of Paper-Book of AY 2007-08 / Page 165 of Paper-Book of AY 2009-10, making a solemnised averment that the impugned order was served

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS ANDBUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1 (2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

36 (Appeal Memo) and accordingly claims that the\npresent appeal has been filed within the prescribed period of 60 days. Shri\nHarsh Malhotra, partner of assessee-firm, has filed an affidavit on Page 146\nof Paper-Book of AY 2007-08 / Page 165 of Paper-Book of AY 2009-10,\nmaking a solemnised averment that the impugned order was served

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

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

1,73,20,677/- on the basis of Page 84 of LPS-4 found during the course of the search giving the calculations and the rate per sq. ft. for 2 and 3 BHK flats with the service-tax at the rate of 3.09% Page 4 of 36 ACIT (Central)-2, Indore Vs. Lifestyle Infratech

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

housing-project” must be completed within the specified time. In fact, that is also the intention of the Parliament that entire project as approved by local-authority must be completed. Further, we need to rule out the proposition that even if a part of the project is completed, deduction is allowed because if that is permitted, a person may complete

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

housing-project” must be completed within the specified time. In fact, that is also the intention of the Parliament that entire project as approved by local-authority must be completed. Further, we need to rule out the proposition that even if a part of the project is completed, deduction is allowed because if that is permitted, a person may complete

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

housing-project” must be completed within the specified time. In fact, that is also the intention of the Parliament that entire project as approved by local-authority must be completed. Further, we need to rule out the proposition that even if a part of the project is completed, deduction is allowed because if that is permitted, a person may complete

M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

housing-project” must be completed within the specified time. In fact, that is also the intention of the Parliament that entire project as approved by local-authority must be completed. Further, we need to rule out the proposition that even if a part of the project is completed, deduction is allowed because if that is permitted, a person may complete

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

housing-project” must be completed within the specified time. In fact, that is also the intention of the Parliament that entire project as approved by local-authority must be completed. Further, we need to rule out the proposition that even if a part of the project is completed, deduction is allowed because if that is permitted, a person may complete

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

36 of 116 ITANo.794/Ind/2018 & IT(SS)A No.14 & 07/Ind/2022 Ritesh Jain & M.P. Agro Nutri Food Ltd. 2009-10 4 K.K. Patel Finance Ltd. 7500000 2009-10 5 Trimurthi Finvest Ltd. 5500000 Total 34000000 14.1 There is no dispute that the LPS-2 is a ledger account in the books of M/s M.P Agro Nutri Foods Ltd. wherein the transactions

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

1 kgm Silver bar was sold with a profit in the range of Rs. 500'/- to Rs 800/- during the reference year. In view of the above, gross profit earned on sale of per Silver bar is determined at Rs. 800/- In this regard the reply given for Gross Profit estimation in case of Gold KG Bars is equally applicable

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

1 kgm Silver bar was sold with a profit in the range of Rs. 500'/- to Rs 800/- during the reference year. In view of the above, gross profit earned on sale of per Silver bar is determined at Rs. 800/- In this regard the reply given for Gross Profit estimation in case of Gold KG Bars is equally applicable

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

1 kgm Silver bar was sold with a profit in the range of Rs. 500'/- to Rs 800/- during the reference year. In view of the above, gross profit earned on sale of per Silver bar is determined at Rs. 800/- In this regard the reply given for Gross Profit estimation in case of Gold KG Bars is equally applicable

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

36,24,502.03 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

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

36,24,502.03 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

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

36,24,502.03 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

DCIT CENTRAL, BHOPAL vs. SHARAD SHARMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No. 29/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2010-11) It(Ss)A No. 32/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2015-16) Shri Sharad Sharma, Acit, Central, बनाम/ H-3B, Nishant Colony, Gwalior Vs. 74 Bunglows, (Stationed At Bhopal) Tt Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Amzps9791D) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

house property, relying upon documents statements of the firm furnished by the assessee before CIT(A) as additional evidence, without providing any opportunity to be assessing officer to rebut the same, when it is mandatory as per Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules at Ld. CIT(A) shall not take into account any evidence produced under Rule 46(1