MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

reassessment cannot be declared invalid in the penalty proceedings’’. View taken by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the above judgment was indirectly affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, when it dismissed an SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgment in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows (supra), specifically observing that there was no merits

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

reassessment cannot be declared invalid in the penalty proceedings’’. View taken by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the above judgment was indirectly affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, when it dismissed an SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgment in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows (supra), specifically observing that there was no merits

HARLEEN KAUR BHATIA,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

120; (b) "record" shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; HarleenKaur Bhatia &GurvinderKaur Bhatia ITA Nos.150 & 151 /Ind/19 (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been

GURVINDER KAUR BHATIA ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

120; (b) "record" shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; HarleenKaur Bhatia &GurvinderKaur Bhatia ITA Nos.150 & 151 /Ind/19 (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

reassessment by invoking the provisions of section 263 may kindly be dropped. Without prejudice to the above as far as merit of the issues reaised in show-cause notice in question are concerned, we have to submit that the learned Assessing Officer has issued notices u/s 133(6) in loan creditor companies (supra). That after getting the requisite details

THE DCIT CENTRAL-(1), INDORE vs. M/S AYUSH AJAY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. , INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanii.T(Ss).A. Nos.14 To 16/Ind/2018 (Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10)

120/- - 2013-14 29/09/2013 12,20,30,520/- 03/11/2015 12,20,30,520/- - 2014-15 30/09/2014 13,70,87,550/- 04/11/2015 13,70,87,550/- - 5. Being aggrieved by the assessee and/or we satisfied the above addition made under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A and under Section 143(3) of the Act the assessee filed appeals before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

reassessment proceedings. We are unable to accept that is the true position in law. In our opinion the decision of the Andra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bavuri V. Narasimhan, (1) relied on by the assessee was not correctly decided. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow these appeals, vacate the answers given by the High

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

reassessment proceedings. We are unable to accept that is the true position in law. In our opinion the decision of the Andra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bavuri V. Narasimhan, (1) relied on by the assessee was not correctly decided. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow these appeals, vacate the answers given by the High

SHRI DILIP BUILDCON LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

120 agreement days (One hundred and twenty) days after the termination, and it shall have the obligation to repair and rectify, at its own cost, all defects and deficiencies observed by the Independent Engineer in the Project Highway during the aforesaid period. …” 12 Escrow 31.1.1 The concessionaire shall, prior Article 31 at 170 Account to the appointed date, open

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

120 agreement days (One hundred and twenty) days after the termination, and it shall have the obligation to repair and rectify, at its own cost, all defects and deficiencies observed by the Independent Engineer in the Project Highway during the aforesaid period. …” 12 Escrow 31.1.1 The concessionaire shall, prior Article 31 at 170 Account to the appointed date, open

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

120 agreement days (One hundred and twenty) days after the termination, and it shall have the obligation to repair and rectify, at its own cost, all defects and deficiencies observed by the Independent Engineer in the Project Highway during the aforesaid period. …” 12 Escrow 31.1.1 The concessionaire shall, prior Article 31 at 170 Account to the appointed date, open

DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

120 agreement days (One hundred and twenty) days after the termination, and it shall have the obligation to repair and rectify, at its own cost, all defects and deficiencies observed by the Independent Engineer in the Project Highway during the aforesaid period. …” 12 Escrow 31.1.1 The concessionaire shall, prior Article 31 at 170 Account to the appointed date, open

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

120 agreement days (One hundred and twenty) days after the termination, and it shall have the obligation to repair and rectify, at its own cost, all defects and deficiencies observed by the Independent Engineer in the Project Highway during the aforesaid period. …” 12 Escrow 31.1.1 The concessionaire shall, prior Article 31 at 170 Account to the appointed date, open

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

120 agreement days (One hundred and twenty) days after the termination, and it shall have the obligation to repair and rectify, at its own cost, all defects and deficiencies observed by the Independent Engineer in the Project Highway during the aforesaid period. …” 12 Escrow 31.1.1 The concessionaire shall, prior Article 31 at 170 Account to the appointed date, open

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

120 agreement days (One hundred and twenty) days after the termination, and it shall have the obligation to repair and rectify, at its own cost, all defects and deficiencies observed by the Independent Engineer in the Project Highway during the aforesaid period. …” 12 Escrow 31.1.1 The concessionaire shall, prior Article 31 at 170 Account to the appointed date, open

THED CIT ,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S DILIP BUILDCON LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

120 agreement days (One hundred and twenty) days after the termination, and it shall have the obligation to repair and rectify, at its own cost, all defects and deficiencies observed by the Independent Engineer in the Project Highway during the aforesaid period. …” 12 Escrow 31.1.1 The concessionaire shall, prior Article 31 at 170 Account to the appointed date, open

PARAMETRIC TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S.Parametric Trading A.C.I.T., Pvt.Ltd., Circle 4(1), 205, Sujata Chambers, 2Nd Indore. Floor, Abhichand Gandhi Vs. Marg,Off Katha Bazar Masjid (W), Mumbai (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aagca4207J Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Shailesh Parmar, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2023

120/- and Rs. 1,06,09,979/- for A.Ys. 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively has been paid. The payment of kicks backs/bribe is prohibited by law and therefore, squarely thus within the ambit explanation to section 37(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and requires to be disallowed. Therefore, I have reasons to believe that income

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained