ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

deduction u/s 80IB(11A) for each of the year under appeal. The A.O while passing the assessment orders u/s 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2017-18 to 2019-20 and reassessment

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

deduction u/s 80IB(11A) for each of the year under appeal. The A.O while passing the assessment orders u/s 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2017-18 to 2019-20 and reassessment

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

deduction u/s 80IB(11A) for each of the year under appeal. The A.O while passing the assessment orders u/s 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2017-18 to 2019-20 and reassessment

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

deduction u/s 80IB(11A) for each of the year under appeal. The A.O while passing the assessment orders u/s 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2017-18 to 2019-20 and reassessment

SHRI PANKAJ VYAS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO -1 (2) , BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanipankaj Vyas Ito-1(2) House No.20, Geet Gunglows, Bhopal Phase-5, Narela Shankari Vs. Bhopal

deduction u/s 54EC in the return of income u/s 139 of the Act. Therefore, the same cannot be claimed in the reassessment

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction

SHRI PREMNARAYAN,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

reassessment proceedings. 3 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant purchased an agricultural land against sale of the land in question and thus, in any case, the appellant was eligible claim deduction

SMT. SHARDA,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

reassessment proceedings. 3 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant purchased an agricultural land against sale of the land in question and thus, in any case, the appellant was eligible claim deduction

THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment order, the AO himself has stated that in some transactions the appellant has also earned profits though the amount is meager. It is also the case of the AO that the price discovery mechanism on NMCE platform was rigged and the brokers / clients operated in the clusters with mutual understanding. However, in screen base trading mechanism of any exchange

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment order, the AO himself has stated that in some transactions the appellant has also earned profits though the amount is meager. It is also the case of the AO that the price discovery mechanism on NMCE platform was rigged and the brokers / clients operated in the clusters with mutual understanding. However, in screen base trading mechanism of any exchange

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment order, the AO himself has stated that in some transactions the appellant has also earned profits though the amount is meager. It is also the case of the AO that the price discovery mechanism on NMCE platform was rigged and the brokers / clients operated in the clusters with mutual understanding. However, in screen base trading mechanism of any exchange

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

deduction as claimed in the return, therefore, kindly allowed. 6.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred and not justified in not allowing/not giving set off of deficit of earlier years against the income of current year which be kindly allowed. 7.That on the facts and in the circumstances

M/S M.P. MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

deduction as claimed in the return, therefore, kindly allowed. 6.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred and not justified in not allowing/not giving set off of deficit of earlier years against the income of current year which be kindly allowed. 7.That on the facts and in the circumstances

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

deduction as claimed in the return, therefore, kindly allowed. 6.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred and not justified in not allowing/not giving set off of deficit of earlier years against the income of current year which be kindly allowed. 7.That on the facts and in the circumstances