DCIT KHANDWA, KHANDWA vs. M/S RAJRAJESHWAR COTTON CORPORATION, SENDHWA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Cross-

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) & C.O. No. 9/Ind/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit M/S Raj Rajeshwar Cotton Khandwa Corporation, बनाम/ Warla Road, Sendhwa, Vs. District - Khandwa (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aagfr 6243 N Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022

deduction was allowed will be change of opinion therefore reassessment was held to be bad in law. 4.13 No new material

ACIT 2 (1), UJJAIN vs. M/S PHALODI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY NERSIGARH, NERSIGARH

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit-2(1) M/S. Phaloudi Construction बनाम/ Company, Nersingarh Ujjain Vs. Rajgarh (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aaffp9523Q Revenue By Shri V.J. Boricha, Sr. Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 06. 02.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal By Revenue Pertaining To A.Y. 2007-08 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)- Ujjain, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Dated 04.07.2017 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On M/S. Phaloudi Construction Co. Itano.657/Ind/2017 31.01.2013 By Dcit, 2(1), Ujjain. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.9,97,515/- On Account Of Short Deduction Of Tds Based On Proviso 2 To Section 40(A)(Ia) Which Was Introduced Only From 01.04.2013.”

deducted at source at lower rate than the rate applicable on payment of machinery hire charges, issued notice u/s 148 of the Act 2 M/s. Phaloudi Construction Co. ITANo.657/Ind/2017 and thereafter concluded the reassessment

SHRI ARVIND KUMAR SINGH ,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment order dated 31.12.2009 stating that his claim for deduction under Section 54 of the Act should be accepted. 23. Therefore

SHRI ARVIND KUMAR SINGH ,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment order dated 31.12.2009 stating that his claim for deduction under Section 54 of the Act should be accepted. 23. Therefore

SHRI ARVIND KUMAR SINGH ,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment order dated 31.12.2009 stating that his claim for deduction under Section 54 of the Act should be accepted. 23. Therefore

SHRI ARVIND KUMAR SINGH ,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment order dated 31.12.2009 stating that his claim for deduction under Section 54 of the Act should be accepted. 23. Therefore

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

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

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

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. KUMARI SHEETAL GARG, INDORE

In the result Ground No. 1& 2 of the

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Dcit-3(1), Kumari Sheetal Garg, Indore Vs. 8/2, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Afhpg9179G Revenue By Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ca Date Of Hearing 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 O R D E R

reassessment proceedings as invalid and uphold the same and dismiss revenue’s Ground No.3. 12. As regards Ground No.1 & 2 which relates to the merits of the case, revenue is aggrieved that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,50,74,858/- made by Ld.A.O on account of disallowance of deduction

M/S. GANPAT PANNALAL,HARDA vs. ITO-1 HARDA, HARDA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2007-08

reassessment as per the assessing officer was that the assessee has declared business income of Rs.5,56,193/- and claimed the deduction

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

THE ITO, - 2, ITARSI vs. M/S. MANISH KUMAR RAKESH KUMAR, HOSHAGABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2005-06

reassessment under section 147 upon determining the taxable income at Rs.6,32,322/- after disallowing the appellant’s claim of deduction

ACIT (CENTRAL UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S ARIHANT FUTURE AND COMMODITIES LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

reassessment order. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the appellant is entitled to deduction

THE ACIT, CENTRAL - UJJAIN, INDORE vs. M/S ARIHANT FUTURE & COMMADITIES LTD , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

reassessment order. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the appellant is entitled to deduction

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-UJJAIN, INDORE vs. M/S ARIHANT CAPITALS MARKETS LTD , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

reassessment order. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the appellant is entitled to deduction