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

B-51 were made to hammals on daily/ fortnightly basis in cash, however due to format as suggested by FCI the seized registers were maintained on monthly basis. Further, the appellant for execution of work of FCI and other concerns would not hire 211 permanent employee during the year 2014-15 and 189 during the year 2015-16. Rather

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

B-51 were made to hammals on daily/ fortnightly basis in cash, however due to format as suggested by FCI the seized registers were maintained on monthly basis. Further, the appellant for execution of work of FCI and other concerns would not hire 211 permanent employee during the year 2014-15 and 189 during the year 2015-16. Rather

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

B-51 were made to hammals on daily/ fortnightly basis in cash, however due to format as suggested by FCI the seized registers were maintained on monthly basis. Further, the appellant for execution of work of FCI and other concerns would not hire 211 permanent employee during the year 2014-15 and 189 during the year 2015-16. Rather

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

b) reported in Audit Report & ITR ii. High interest expenditure against new capital 5.1 Thereafter on perusal of the record the Pr. CIT noted that the assesse has taken interest bearing loans of Rs.9.90 crores and unsecured loans of Rs.6.76 crores and debited the interest expenditure in the profit and loss account of Rs.1.10 crores. Simultaneously the assesse has given

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

b] Q.Whether inadequate inquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer empowers the Commissioner to revise the assessment order? A. It is imperative for the Assessing Officer to conduct enquiry to satisfy himself about the genuineness of transactions. Scope of the term 'enquiry' can be diverse in different circumstances. There cannot be straitjacket formula to positively conclude as to conducting

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

property reported in AIR 3 Mismatch in sales turnover reported in Audit Report and ITR 4 Mismatch in amount paid to related persons u/s 40A(2)(b) 4. An order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer on 14.12.2016 assessing the Total Income of appellant at Rs. 16,21,350/- including the income under

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

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

2) expired on 30.09.2013. 2013-14 12.11.2014 PB 213 Return filed after search. 2014-15 12.11.2014 PB 257 Return filed after search. Thus, the assessment for A.Y. 2008-09 was already concluded assessment and therefore, it was a non-abated assessment. He therefore relying on various judgments submitted that the scope of the proceedings u/s. 153A would be limited

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

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

2) expired on 30.09.2013. 2013-14 12.11.2014 PB 213 Return filed after search. 2014-15 12.11.2014 PB 257 Return filed after search. Thus, the assessment for A.Y. 2008-09 was already concluded assessment and therefore, it was a non-abated assessment. He therefore relying on various judgments submitted that the scope of the proceedings u/s. 153A would be limited

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