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

section 40A(3). Thus, considering entire conspectus of case, we do not find any valid reason to make interference with the deletion of disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023

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

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

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

Section 40A(3) as irrelevant for A.Y. 2014-15. 7. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a builder and developer and filed his return of income on 30th September, 2014, declaring total income of Rs. 26,28,430/-. The scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 29th December 2016, at the returned income

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

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 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

40A (3)- Whether on facts, impugned revisional order did not require any interference- Held, yes [Para-16] [ In favour of revenue] 4.0 Therefore, in view of the above discussion I am of the considered opinion that the order dated: 06.01.2016 for A.Y. 2013-14 is erroneous in so far as it is also prejudicial to the interest of revenue

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

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

SHRI LAV NARANG,UJJAIN vs. PCIT,, UJJAIN

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

section 263 of the Act and issued following show cause notice to the assessee (relevant extract is reproduced below): “In this case, assessee filed return of income of the A.Y.2015-16 on 31.10.2015 declaring total income of Rs.49,15,730/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 30.12.2017 by the AO Ujjain at the total income of Rs.80

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

40A(3) of the Act of Rs.20,43,000/-. [ITA No.568/Ind/2016] [Smt. Sangeeta Nayar, New Delhi] 3. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Ground Nos.1 to 3 of this appeal are inter connected