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

reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. section 147 the AO disallowed the benefit of section 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assesse on commercial basis. Similar for A.Y.2016-17 & 2017-18 the AO while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee

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

reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. section 147 the AO disallowed the benefit of section 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assesse on commercial basis. Similar for A.Y.2016-17 & 2017-18 the AO while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee

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

reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. section 147 the AO disallowed the benefit of section 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assesse on commercial basis. Similar for A.Y.2016-17 & 2017-18 the AO while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee

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

reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. section 147 the AO disallowed the benefit of section 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assesse on commercial basis. Similar for A.Y.2016-17 & 2017-18 the AO while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee

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

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. Acit Central-1 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent /Revenue) Pan: Aaccd 6124 B Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Shri Yash Kukreja, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2022

56 (2) and 81(14) of the Act. When the Act defines a particular term it is that definition which has to be taken for that term wherever it occurs in the Act and it would not be permissible to construe the said term in any other manner. ………….. 13. ………….. In the absence of such a definition, it would have been

SHRI PANKAJ KALANI,INDORE vs. THE JCIT, OSD (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2012-13

56,681/- including additional income of Rs. 62,50,000/- as accepted during the course of search. A.5] The assessing officer however initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAA of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 in respect of such additional Deepak and Pankaj Kalani /ITANos.700 & 701/Ind/2019 income of Rs. 62,50,000/- and subsequently levied penalty

SHRI DIPAK KALANI,INDORE vs. THE JCIT,OSD, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2012-13

56,681/- including additional income of Rs. 62,50,000/- as accepted during the course of search. A.5] The assessing officer however initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAA of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 in respect of such additional Deepak and Pankaj Kalani /ITANos.700 & 701/Ind/2019 income of Rs. 62,50,000/- and subsequently levied penalty

SHRI NARAYAN DAS TOLANI,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

56 ITR 269 (Bom.), relying on Supreme Court in ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das 52 ITR 335, wherein it was held that the jurisdiction of the AAC under section 31 of the 1922 Act was strictly confined to the assessment order of that particular year under appeal. The AAC no doubt was competent to hold whether a particular item

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

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

M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings.” In the light of the above judgment we are unable to affirm the action of the authorities below. As the initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) vide notice 274 of the Act is not inconformity with the requirement of the law. Thus, the Penalty order

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings.” In the light of the above judgment we are unable to affirm the action of the authorities below. As the initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) vide notice 274 of the Act is not inconformity with the requirement of the law. Thus, the Penalty order

M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings.” In the light of the above judgment we are unable to affirm the action of the authorities below. As the initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) vide notice 274 of the Act is not inconformity with the requirement of the law. Thus, the Penalty order

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

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

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