PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO-WARD-3(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”]. (ii) ITA No. 301/Ind/2023 is directed against appeal-order dated 26.04.2023 passed CIT(A) which in turn arise out of penalty-order dated 28.09.2015 passed by AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. (iii) ITA No. 302/Ind/2023 is directed against appeal-order dated 15.09.2022 passed CIT(A) which

MR GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, INDORE

Accordingly. Thus, this ground is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Gaurav Ajmera, Dcit, बनाम/ 38, Ram Mohalla, Central Circle 2, Ratlam Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aglpa8863C Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.09.2023

penalty. 16. It was also argued that Income Tax at the rate or rates specified, as prescribed in any Central Act to be charged for any assessment year, shall be so charged in respect of the total income of the previous year as per Section 4 of the IT Act. However, there is no such provision to enable a surcharge

THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against The Appellant. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice, to each other unless mentioned specifically. TPA. No. 265/Ind/2015: REVENUE`s APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 Ground:No.1: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon`ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Mumbai was justified in deletion

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against The Appellant. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice, to each other unless mentioned specifically. TPA. No. 265/Ind/2015: REVENUE`s APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 Ground:No.1: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon`ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Mumbai was justified in deletion

M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against The Appellant. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice, to each other unless mentioned specifically. TPA. No. 265/Ind/2015: REVENUE`s APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 Ground:No.1: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon`ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Mumbai was justified in deletion

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against The Appellant. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice, to each other unless mentioned specifically. TPA. No. 265/Ind/2015: REVENUE`s APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 Ground:No.1: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon`ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Mumbai was justified in deletion

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

269 ITR 481 (Cal) iii)Smt. Durgabati & Smt.Narmadabala Gupta Vs. CIT,(1956)30ITR 101(Pat); iv)Raja Yadvendra Datt Dube Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh(1964)54ITR506 (All) v) Babul Lath Vs. ACIT (2002) 83 ITD 691 (Mum) 6.00 REASONS RECORDED BY THE LEARNED AO WERE NOT REASONABLE AND THE SAME WERE VAGUE IN NATURE Without prejudice to the above

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

269 ITR 481 (Cal) iii)Smt. Durgabati & Smt.Narmadabala Gupta Vs. CIT,(1956)30ITR 101(Pat); iv)Raja Yadvendra Datt Dube Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh(1964)54ITR506 (All) v) Babul Lath Vs. ACIT (2002) 83 ITD 691 (Mum) 6.00 REASONS RECORDED BY THE LEARNED AO WERE NOT REASONABLE AND THE SAME WERE VAGUE IN NATURE Without prejudice to the above

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

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

269 ITR 577\n(P&H),\nIt was held that the mere fact that the profits are\nlow compared to earlier years is not sufficient\nto make an estimate of net profits,\"\nGVDI vs. DCIT (2014)\n226 taxman 16 (Mad.)\nHeld that “when assessee explained reasons for\nfall in G.P and revenue did not verify same by\nsubstantial materials, impugned

LATE MANOHARASINGH THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI SURAJ MANDLOI,INDORE vs. ITO 1(1), INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2017-18 Late Manoharasingh Income-Tax Officer, (Through Legal Heir Shri 1(1), Suraj Mandloi), Indore. बनाम/ 34, Village Begam Kheri, Vs. P.O.Burana Kheri, Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan : Blspm9380B Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2024

u/s 115BBE was 30%+3% Cess as on first day of the Previous-Year i.e. 01.04.2016, therefore the tax-rate of 30%+3% Cess shall apply to the present case and not the higher rate, hence the assessment-order does not cause prejudice to the interest of revenue. The reason of projecting such a claim by assessee is that

NARENDRA KUMAR SHATILAL JAIN HUF,INDORE vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Narendra Kumar Shantilal Jain Pr. Cit -1 Huf Indore Prop. M/S Chandan Garments Khutal Mohite Complex, 2Nd Floor, 27/36, बनाम/Vs. Subhash Chowk, Rajwada Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aachn 5568 E Assessee By Shri Prakash Jain & Ms. Shreya Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2022 आदेश / / O R D E R / /

u/s 115BBE was 30%+3% Cess as on first day of the Previous-Year i.e. 01.04.2016, therefore the tax-rate of 30%+3% Cess shall apply to the present case and not the higher rate, hence the assessment-order does not cause prejudice to the interest of revenue. The reason of projecting such a claim by assessee is that

CHANDAN GARMENTS P LTD ,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Chandan Garments Private Pr. Cit -1 Ltd. Indore बनाम 27-36, Khutal Complex, Subhash Chowk, Rajwada, /Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaecc 3248 H Assessee By Shri Prakash Jain & Ms. Shreya Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 02.12.2022 आदेश / / / O R D E R /

u/s 115BBE was 30%+3% Cess as on first day of the Previous-Year i.e. 01.04.2016, therefore the tax-rate of 30%+3% Cess shall apply to the present case and not the higher rate, hence the assessment-order does not cause prejudice to the interest of revenue. The reason of projecting such a claim by assessee is that

THE ACIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. MADHYA PRADESH AUDYOGIK KENDRA VIKAS NIGAM (I) LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

section 13 and 149(2-A) of the Companies Act, 1956 which provides that no company can undertake any activity mentioned in clause (C) OTHER OBJECTS of the Company without complying the formalities as provided under section 149(2-A) of the Companies Act and if the company undertakes any such business the same shall be ultra vires

THE ACIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. MADHYA PRADESH AUDYOGIK KENDRA VIKAS NIGAM (I) LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

section 13 and 149(2-A) of the Companies Act, 1956 which provides that no company can undertake any activity mentioned in clause (C) OTHER OBJECTS of the Company without complying the formalities as provided under section 149(2-A) of the Companies Act and if the company undertakes any such business the same shall be ultra vires

M/S MADHYA PRADESH AUDYOGIK KENDRA VIKAS NIGAM (INDORE) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

section 13 and 149(2-A) of the Companies Act, 1956 which provides that no company can undertake any activity mentioned in clause (C) OTHER OBJECTS of the Company without complying the formalities as provided under section 149(2-A) of the Companies Act and if the company undertakes any such business the same shall be ultra vires

M/S MADHYA PRADESH AUDYOGIK KENDRA VIKAS NIGAM (INDORE) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

section 13 and 149(2-A) of the Companies Act, 1956 which provides that no company can undertake any activity mentioned in clause (C) OTHER OBJECTS of the Company without complying the formalities as provided under section 149(2-A) of the Companies Act and if the company undertakes any such business the same shall be ultra vires

M/S MADHYA PRADESH AUDYOGIK KENDRA VIKAS NIGAM (INDORE) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

section 13 and 149(2-A) of the Companies Act, 1956 which provides that no company can undertake any activity mentioned in clause (C) OTHER OBJECTS of the Company without complying the formalities as provided under section 149(2-A) of the Companies Act and if the company undertakes any such business the same shall be ultra vires

THE ACIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. MADHYA PRADESH AUDYOGIK KENDRA VIKAS NIGAM (I) LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

section 13 and 149(2-A) of the Companies Act, 1956 which provides that no company can undertake any activity mentioned in clause (C) OTHER OBJECTS of the Company without complying the formalities as provided under section 149(2-A) of the Companies Act and if the company undertakes any such business the same shall be ultra vires