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

2,53,63,900/- in A.Y. 2015-16 and Rs. 1,58,16,000/- in A.Y. 2016-17 are hereby deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is allowed.” [Emphasis supplied] 9. Before us, Ld. DR for revenue/appellant submitted that the limited issue before bench is whether section 40A(3) was attracted or not? He submitted that the assessee

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

2,53,63,900/- in A.Y. 2015-16 and Rs. 1,58,16,000/- in A.Y. 2016-17 are hereby deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is allowed.” [Emphasis supplied] 9. Before us, Ld. DR for revenue/appellant submitted that the limited issue before bench is whether section 40A(3) was attracted or not? He submitted that the assessee

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

2,53,63,900/- in A.Y. 2015-16 and Rs. 1,58,16,000/- in A.Y. 2016-17 are hereby deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is allowed.” [Emphasis supplied] 9. Before us, Ld. DR for revenue/appellant submitted that the limited issue before bench is whether section 40A(3) was attracted or not? He submitted that the assessee

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

40A(3) _ Whether on facts, impugned revisional order did not require any interference - Held, yes [Para 16) [In favour of revenue) Therefore, in view of the above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the order dated 27.12.2016 for A.V. 2014-15 is erroneous in so far as it is also prejudicial to the interest of revenue on account

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

40A (3) of the income tax act. It is apparent from the audit objection filed before us at page number 30 of the paper book that the case of the assessee was selected for the scrutiny to verify only the cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee. The issue before us is whether assessing officer has made

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

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

section 40A(3) and no disallowance u/s 40A(3) can be made in the hands of the assessee.” 17. We therefore respectfully following the judgment in the case of Gurdas Garg (supra) and Tirupati Construction (supra) hold that having regard to business expediency, the payment in cash for purchase of land through registered deed was allowable. Thus, considering the facts

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

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

section 40A(3) and no disallowance u/s 40A(3) can be made in the hands of the assessee.” 17. We therefore respectfully following the judgment in the case of Gurdas Garg (supra) and Tirupati Construction (supra) hold that having regard to business expediency, the payment in cash for purchase of land through registered deed was allowable. Thus, considering the facts

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

house. Total Investment u/s 54 F 89,44,991 89,44,991 Net Income from Long Term Capital Gain 1,93,656 3. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for following terms: S.No Reason for selection of case in scrutiny 1 Large deduction claimed u/s 54B,54C,54D, 54G, 54GA 2 Sale consideration of the Property

SHRI LAV NARANG,UJJAIN vs. PCIT,, UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16

40A(3). 2(b) Out of 51 residential plots purchased, the assessee sold 6 plots during the months of Mar. 2015 and worked capital loss of Rs.1,81,455/-. As per purchase deed of plot No.151 available on record, the registration expenses and stamp duty fee of Rs.40,735/- was paid by the seller. Therefore, the capital losses worked

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

house property, capital gain and income from other sources. Income of Rs.46,16,412/- declared in the income tax return submitted on 31.07.2010. Return filed were processed u/s 143(1). Case selected for scrutiny. Statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act duly served upon the assessee. While scrutinizing the details the learned Assessing Officer (In short `Ld.A.O’) observed that

SHRI PRADEEP MAHESHWARI HUF,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

house property, capital gain and income from other sources. Income of Rs.46,16,412/- declared in the income tax return submitted on 31.07.2010. Return filed were processed u/s 143(1). Case selected for scrutiny. Statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act duly served upon the assessee. While scrutinizing the details the learned Assessing Officer (In short `Ld.A.O’) observed that

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

house property, capital gain and income from other sources. Income of Rs.46,16,412/- declared in the income tax return submitted on 31.07.2010. Return filed were processed u/s 143(1). Case selected for scrutiny. Statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act duly served upon the assessee. While scrutinizing the details the learned Assessing Officer (In short `Ld.A.O’) observed that

SMT. SANGEETA NAYAR,NEW DELHI vs. THE ITO 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12

2. Briefly stated facts are that case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) vide order dated 11.2.2014. The assessee derived its income from land, interest on savings. While framing the assessment, the A.O. made addition on account of undisclosed short

BHARAT JAROLI,NEEMUCH vs. PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Bharat Jaroli, Pr. Cit, B.No. 45, 1, Kila Road, Ujjain बनाम/ Mahaveer Bagh, Vs. Neemuch (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aanpj5994K Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.02.2024

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr. CIT erred in law in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act on facts contrary to the records of assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2014- 15. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr. CIT erred in law in passing order