RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

house-property, business / profession and interest. In the return, the assessee also declared a long-term capital gain of Rs. 90,69,199/- from sale of equity shares of Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd. exempted u/s 10(38) of the act. The assessee claimed to have purchased shares of Lifeline Drugs and Pharma

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

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

house-property, business / profession and interest. In the return, the assessee also declared a long-term capital gain of Rs. 66,28,161/- earned from sale of equity shares of Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd. exempted u/s 10(38) of the act. The assessee claimed to have purchased shares of Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd. for Rs. 33,418/-; sold

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAJEEV AJMERA, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-3(1) Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Co No.23/Ind/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.51/Ind/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Dcit-3(1) Indore Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Assessee By Shri Mahendra Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2022 आदेश/ O R D E R

section 14A was clearly applicable on assessee's investment in shares and mutual fund wherefrom income was exempt.” Page 2 of 17 Shri Rajeev Ajmera ITA No.51/Ind/2018& CO.No.23/Ind/2018 Assessment year 2010-11 Ground No. 1: 5. In this Ground, the issue involved is the deduction of commission- expenditure of Rs. 1,74,50,000/- claimed by the assessee

THE A C I T CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL vs. S V INFRA DEVELOPERS, BHOPAL

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

house is handed over to any customer. The volume of the material at site was also too small which cannot justify the undisclosed income of Rs.5 crores. Ld. CIT(A) after appreciating the above stated facts concluded that the addition made was purely on the basis of the statement given u/s 132(4) of the Act and deserves

DCIT !(1) INDORE, INDORE vs. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

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

801 to 803/Ind/2018 Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2014-15 DCIT 1(1) M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation Indore Vs. Pvt.Ltd, 5, Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore (Revenue) (Respondent ) PAN No. AACCA8468K ITA Nos. 778/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.23 & 24/Ind/2019 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation DCIT 1(1) Pvt.Ltd, Vs. Indore 5, Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

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

801 to 803/Ind/2018 Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2014-15 DCIT 1(1) M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation Indore Vs. Pvt.Ltd, 5, Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore (Revenue) (Respondent ) PAN No. AACCA8468K ITA Nos. 778/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.23 & 24/Ind/2019 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation DCIT 1(1) Pvt.Ltd, Vs. Indore 5, Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent

M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

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

801 to 803/Ind/2018 Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2014-15 DCIT 1(1) M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation Indore Vs. Pvt.Ltd, 5, Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore (Revenue) (Respondent ) PAN No. AACCA8468K ITA Nos. 778/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.23 & 24/Ind/2019 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation DCIT 1(1) Pvt.Ltd, Vs. Indore 5, Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

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

801 to 803/Ind/2018 Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2014-15 DCIT 1(1) M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation Indore Vs. Pvt.Ltd, 5, Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore (Revenue) (Respondent ) PAN No. AACCA8468K ITA Nos. 778/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.23 & 24/Ind/2019 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation DCIT 1(1) Pvt.Ltd, Vs. Indore 5, Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent

THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE vs. JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

property under consideration, giving following reliefs is contradictory :- (i) Relief of Rs. 48,07,238/- (para 3.3.5) ignoring that the ‘furniture and fixtures’ involve completely different items as dealt by Ld. CIT(A) at para 3.4 ? (ii) Relief given based on use by DVO of CPWD rates, as compared to the lower State PWD rates ? (iii) Relief given on architect

JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

property under consideration, giving following reliefs is contradictory :- (i) Relief of Rs. 48,07,238/- (para 3.3.5) ignoring that the ‘furniture and fixtures’ involve completely different items as dealt by Ld. CIT(A) at para 3.4 ? (ii) Relief given based on use by DVO of CPWD rates, as compared to the lower State PWD rates ? (iii) Relief given on architect