M/S. SANWARIA AGROILS LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

14A of the Act, were made even though the assessee has debited interest expenditure of Rs. 3.61 crores. Thus, there was prima-facie reason for reopening of assessment. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in reopening the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. We therefore, reject M/s. Sanwaria Agroil Ltd. / I.T.A. No. 620/Ind/2013 /A.Y

M/S. BHANDARI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

14A was warranted, was a debatable fact. In any event, even if it were not debatable, the error by the Assessing Officer is not “unsustainable”. Possibly he could have taken another view; yet, that he did not do so, would not render his opinion an unsustainable one, warranting exercise of section 263.” 4.11. The appellant is also placing reliance

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

2) have already elapsed. In other words the references is to those assessments in whose case assessment under section 143 (3) cannot now be done. It is not at all the case of the revenue that in the appeals which have been claimed as unabated here there was time for assessment under section 143(3). In this view

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

2) have already elapsed. In other words the references is to those assessments in whose case assessment under section 143 (3) cannot now be done. It is not at all the case of the revenue that in the appeals which have been claimed as unabated here there was time for assessment under section 143(3). In this view

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

2) have already elapsed. In other words the references is to those assessments in whose case assessment under section 143 (3) cannot now be done. It is not at all the case of the revenue that in the appeals which have been claimed as unabated here there was time for assessment under section 143(3). In this view

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

2) have already elapsed. In other words the references is to those assessments in whose case assessment under section 143 (3) cannot now be done. It is not at all the case of the revenue that in the appeals which have been claimed as unabated here there was time for assessment under section 143(3). In this view

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

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

section 14A of Rs. 5,01,070/- and made remark for the same that this should be disallowed; and that, the assessee has filed and relied upon the said audit report, thus, clearly justifying the nature of addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances

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

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

section 14A of Rs. 5,01,070/- and made remark for the same that this should be disallowed; and that, the assessee has filed and relied upon the said audit report, thus, clearly justifying the nature of addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances

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

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

section 14A of Rs. 5,01,070/- and made remark for the same that this should be disallowed; and that, the assessee has filed and relied upon the said audit report, thus, clearly justifying the nature of addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

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

14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rule. 5. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:- IT(SS)A 90/ Ind/ 2019 A.Y. 2013-14 1. The order passed u/s. 153A/ 143(3) by lower authorities is illegal, invalid, and untenable in law. The same be kindly cancelled 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

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

14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rule. 5. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:- IT(SS)A 90/ Ind/ 2019 A.Y. 2013-14 1. The order passed u/s. 153A/ 143(3) by lower authorities is illegal, invalid, and untenable in law. The same be kindly cancelled 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SARWAR MOHD. KHAN,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 (1), BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground itself

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09

Section 54F of the Act is no more in dispute as the assessee has offered it to tax in the Income Tax Return filed for Shri Sarwar Mohd. Khan Assessment Year 2011-12. In the reassessment proceedings Ld. A.O made no new addition except the addition of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.39,40,000/- which was initially made

THE ACIT 4(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUYASH EXIM P LTD , INDORE

Accordingly, departmental grounds with regard to addition of Rs.1,81,847/- are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2011-12

Reassessment Notice -Transfer Pricing-Draft assessment order Draft assessment order passed without disposing of objections filed 7 Suyash Exim ITA 356 of 2020 and CO 19 of 2021 by assessee to reasons for reopening assessment- Unsustainable - Income Tax Act, 1961, section 147.” 8. We find that during the year under consideration, the assessee was engaged in the business of trading

M/S AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD.,INDORE vs. THEDCIT 1(1) , INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal; 1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the AO of Rs.2,71,66,288/- being unsecured loan from M/s Aereo Dealcom Pvt Ltd and interest paid thereon. 2.Whether on the facts

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AVILABLE FINANCE LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal; 1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the AO of Rs.2,71,66,288/- being unsecured loan from M/s Aereo Dealcom Pvt Ltd and interest paid thereon. 2.Whether on the facts

DY. CIT -1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal; 1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the AO of Rs.2,71,66,288/- being unsecured loan from M/s Aereo Dealcom Pvt Ltd and interest paid thereon. 2.Whether on the facts