VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

159 taxmann.com 450 (Delhi HC): In this case, the AO passed assessment-order for AY 2008-09 on 31.12.2010. Thereafter, the ACIT who was competent authority to impose penalty u/s 271D, 271E, 271AAA, issued notice dated 13.06.2011 to assessee u/s 274. Finally, the ACIT passed penalty-order on 30.12.2011 in terms of section 275(1)(c). The controversy arose whether

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

159 Taxman 191. The Division Bench noted the conflict between the decision of the Full Bench and the Division Bench of this Court and quite naturally concluded that since the view expressed by the Division Bench cannot be reconciled with the view of the Full Bench, it must be held that the Division Bench did not lay down the correct

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

159 Taxman 191. The Division Bench noted the conflict between the decision of the Full Bench and the Division Bench of this Court and quite naturally concluded that since the view expressed by the Division Bench cannot be reconciled with the view of the Full Bench, it must be held that the Division Bench did not lay down the correct

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

159 Taxman 191. The Division Bench noted the conflict between the decision of the Full Bench and the Division Bench of this Court and quite naturally concluded that since the view expressed by the Division Bench cannot be reconciled with the view of the Full Bench, it must be held that the Division Bench did not lay down the correct

SHRI RAM BABU SINGH,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Ram Babu Singh, Dcit-1(1) C/O Sv Agrawal & Associates, Bhopal Dadi Dham, 24, Joy Builders Colony, Vs. Near Rafael Tower, Old Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aelps9945K Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 & 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23 .07.2024

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the addition made on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10). In the assessment order the A.O has given the finding on three points which were considered as non-compliance of conditions prescribed u/s 80IB(10). The first point on which the A.O have given the finding

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

159) of his Order, has stated that the period of the payment is not clearly available and therefore, merely on presumption the AO formed an opinion that the expenditure might have been incurred during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration and made the impugned addition. We find support from the ratio laid down

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

159 Taxman 258 wherein it has been held that if the procedure laid down in section 158BD is not followed, block assessment proceedings would be illegal. The Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly observed that the provisions of section 153C are exactly similar to the provisions of section 158BD in block assessment proceedings. Thus, considering the entire facts and the circumstances

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

159 Taxman 258 wherein it has been held that if the procedure laid down in section 158BD is not followed, block assessment proceedings would be illegal. The Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly observed that the provisions of section 153C are exactly similar to the provisions of section 158BD in block assessment proceedings. Thus, considering the entire facts and the circumstances

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

159 Taxman 328 (Delhi)\n[Copy annexed]\nHeld “CIT(A) is justified in allowing the addl. evidences under Rule 46A where\nthe AO has not responded to the repeated reminders by the CIT(A) to\nsubmit his report.\nb) Asstt. Com. of Income Tax vs. Keti Construction Ltd. (ITA No.\n329/Ind/2022) Order dated 30.05.2023 (Trib. Indore) - [Copy annexed]\nHeld