S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

56,757 and also the depreciation actually allowed to the assessee in the past. We are unable to accept the submission. The Appellate Tribunal has categorically found that Atlanta Corporation is only a financier and when Atlanta Corporation wrote off the liability of the assessee, it cannot be said in retrospect that the cost of the assessee of any part

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

56,757 and also the depreciation actually allowed to the assessee in the past. We are unable to accept the submission. The Appellate Tribunal has categorically found that Atlanta Corporation is only a financier and when Atlanta Corporation wrote off the liability of the assessee, it cannot be said in retrospect that the cost of the assessee of any part

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

56,757 and also the depreciation actually allowed to the assessee in the past. We are unable to accept the submission. The Appellate Tribunal has categorically found that Atlanta Corporation is only a financier and when Atlanta Corporation wrote off the liability of the assessee, it cannot be said in retrospect that the cost of the assessee of any part

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

56,757 and also the depreciation actually allowed to the assessee in the past. We are unable to accept the submission. The Appellate Tribunal has categorically found that Atlanta Corporation is only a financier and when Atlanta Corporation wrote off the liability of the assessee, it cannot be said in retrospect that the cost of the assessee of any part

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

56,757 and also the depreciation actually allowed to the assessee in the past. We are unable to accept the submission. The Appellate Tribunal has categorically found that Atlanta Corporation is only a financier and when Atlanta Corporation wrote off the liability of the assessee, it cannot be said in retrospect that the cost of the assessee of any part

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

56,757 and also the depreciation actually allowed to the assessee in the past. We are unable to accept the submission. The Appellate Tribunal has categorically found that Atlanta Corporation is only a financier and when Atlanta Corporation wrote off the liability of the assessee, it cannot be said in retrospect that the cost of the assessee of any part

NILIMA KOTHARI,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSTT. CENTRE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

1) of the amended 1961 Act. 52.2. Furthermore, a perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Ashish Agrawal‟s case would show that it did not rule on the provisions contained in TOLA or the impact they could have on the reassessment proceedings. In any event, TOLA conferred no such power on the CBDT. 52.3. Besides this

THE ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. DB POWER LTD, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Db Power Limited, Acit, Central Circle-1, बनाम/ Office Block, 1A, Bhopal Vs. Db City Park, 5Th Floor, Corporate Block, Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone-1, Arera Hills, Bhopal (Pan:Aaccd5475F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Acit, Central Circle-1, M/S Db Power Limited, बनाम/ Bhopal Office Block, 1A, Vs. Db City Park, 5Th Floor, Corporate Block, Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone-1, Arera Hills, Bhopal (Pan:Aaccd5475F) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

56(2)(viib) on the premise that the assessee had received excessive consideration for issue of shares; (ii) The AO made an adverse conclusion that the assessee had received cash of Rs. 34,43,98,002/- from different vendors from whom depreciable fixed assets were acquired. Since the assessee had not claimed any depreciation in current year

DB POWER LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Db Power Limited, Acit, Central Circle-1, बनाम/ Office Block, 1A, Bhopal Vs. Db City Park, 5Th Floor, Corporate Block, Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone-1, Arera Hills, Bhopal (Pan:Aaccd5475F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Acit, Central Circle-1, M/S Db Power Limited, बनाम/ Bhopal Office Block, 1A, Vs. Db City Park, 5Th Floor, Corporate Block, Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone-1, Arera Hills, Bhopal (Pan:Aaccd5475F) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

56(2)(viib) on the premise that the assessee had received excessive consideration for issue of shares; (ii) The AO made an adverse conclusion that the assessee had received cash of Rs. 34,43,98,002/- from different vendors from whom depreciable fixed assets were acquired. Since the assessee had not claimed any depreciation in current year

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

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

56 taxman.com (High Court of Delhi) (iv) ACIT Vs Shri Mohanlal Chugh and others in IT(SS)A No. 267 and 268/Ind/2016. (v) ACIT, Bhopal Vs. M/s KL Sharma & Sunita Maheshwari, Bhopal and Anr. In IT(SS)A No.149 to 151/Ind/2019 (ITAT Indore) 6. Ld. authorised representative has submitted that loose sheet of paper is wholly irrelevant as evidence being

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

MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD ,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT -2- (1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

reassessment now sought to be done was merely a change in opinion. 15. However, the AO turned down objections of assessee through letter dated 05.11.2019, copy at Page 26A-26C of Paper-Book. Ld. AR submitted in this letter, the AO has basically mentioned that the case had been re- opened on the basis of subsequent scrutiny-assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5 1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

reassessment now sought to be done was merely a change in opinion. 15. However, the AO turned down objections of assessee through letter dated 05.11.2019, copy at Page 26A-26C of Paper-Book. Ld. AR submitted in this letter, the AO has basically mentioned that the case had been re- opened on the basis of subsequent scrutiny-assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -5(1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT. LTD., BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

reassessment now sought to be done was merely a change in opinion. 15. However, the AO turned down objections of assessee through letter dated 05.11.2019, copy at Page 26A-26C of Paper-Book. Ld. AR submitted in this letter, the AO has basically mentioned that the case had been re- opened on the basis of subsequent scrutiny-assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 5(1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

reassessment now sought to be done was merely a change in opinion. 15. However, the AO turned down objections of assessee through letter dated 05.11.2019, copy at Page 26A-26C of Paper-Book. Ld. AR submitted in this letter, the AO has basically mentioned that the case had been re- opened on the basis of subsequent scrutiny-assessment

MS MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2 (1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

reassessment now sought to be done was merely a change in opinion. 15. However, the AO turned down objections of assessee through letter dated 05.11.2019, copy at Page 26A-26C of Paper-Book. Ld. AR submitted in this letter, the AO has basically mentioned that the case had been re- opened on the basis of subsequent scrutiny-assessment

MS MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2 (1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

reassessment now sought to be done was merely a change in opinion. 15. However, the AO turned down objections of assessee through letter dated 05.11.2019, copy at Page 26A-26C of Paper-Book. Ld. AR submitted in this letter, the AO has basically mentioned that the case had been re- opened on the basis of subsequent scrutiny-assessment

SITARAM MUCHHALA,MARDANA vs. ITO KHARGONE, KHARGONE

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 24,79,657/-under section 45, made to the income of the appellant. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC erred in upholding the addition