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

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