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

ANJU JAIN, LR SHRI SUSHIL JAIN ,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

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

1) of section 10(10D) of the Act, the receipt are taxable in the hands of assignee i.e. assessee even if they are assigned before the date of said amendment. Although the assignment has been completed before the amendment date i.e. 31.03.2013, but the same does not change the nature and character of the receipt, which have been received after

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

1) of section 10(10D) of the Act, the receipt are taxable in the hands of assignee i.e. assessee even if they are assigned before the date of said amendment. Although the assignment has been completed before the amendment date i.e. 31.03.2013, but the same does not change the nature and character of the receipt, which have been received after

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

1) can be taken as twin conditions viz order must be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue must be satisfied simultaneously. Thus if any order so passed is proved to be non- erroneous one then provisions of section 263 cannot be invoked even if the same is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

65,69,670/- and revenue expenditure of Rs.6,38,75,788/- resulting into a surplus of income over expenditure of Rs.1,26,93,882/-. However, the assessee had claimed the benefit u/s 11 of the I.T. Act by considering the capital expenditure of Rs.68,67,284/- as application of funds for charitable purposes. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

65,69,670/- and revenue expenditure of Rs.6,38,75,788/- resulting into a surplus of income over expenditure of Rs.1,26,93,882/-. However, the assessee had claimed the benefit u/s 11 of the I.T. Act by considering the capital expenditure of Rs.68,67,284/- as application of funds for charitable purposes. The Assessing Officer noticed that 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

65(2) and proviso to Section 167 of the Act. As against this, there are other terms used in the different other sections, for example, in Section 81 (11) proviso, the decisions are to be taken by a majority of votes of the Councillors present and voting and at other places the word "Councillors" has been used: for example

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

1) Plot No.04, New Industrial Area Bhopal Vs. Mandideep (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AABCR5783R Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal, and N.D. Patwa, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 30.04.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM : These three appeals by assessee are directed against the three separate

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

1) Plot No.04, New Industrial Area Bhopal Vs. Mandideep (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AABCR5783R Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal, and N.D. Patwa, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 30.04.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM : These three appeals by assessee are directed against the three separate

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

1) Plot No.04, New Industrial Area Bhopal Vs. Mandideep (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AABCR5783R Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal, and N.D. Patwa, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 30.04.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM : These three appeals by assessee are directed against the three separate

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

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

65,39,250 99,88,429 P Ltd 18 Mudrika Fiscal AABCM7362B 1,69,42,500 15,04,12,130 Services PL 19 Graceful AABCG7432L 1,52,26,500 3,00,05,878 Traders P Ltd 20 Goodward AABCG7433M 1,73,29,500 1,50,42,806 Agency P Ltd 21 Vishnupriya AAACV8829P 46,48,500 38,92,620 Prop

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

65,39,250 99,88,429 P Ltd 18 Mudrika Fiscal AABCM7362B 1,69,42,500 15,04,12,130 Services PL 19 Graceful AABCG7432L 1,52,26,500 3,00,05,878 Traders P Ltd 20 Goodward AABCG7433M 1,73,29,500 1,50,42,806 Agency P Ltd 21 Vishnupriya AAACV8829P 46,48,500 38,92,620 Prop

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

65,39,250 99,88,429 P Ltd 18 Mudrika Fiscal AABCM7362B 1,69,42,500 15,04,12,130 Services PL 19 Graceful AABCG7432L 1,52,26,500 3,00,05,878 Traders P Ltd 20 Goodward AABCG7433M 1,73,29,500 1,50,42,806 Agency P Ltd 21 Vishnupriya AAACV8829P 46,48,500 38,92,620 Prop

SANJEEV AGRAWAL ,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

65,86,27,200-\n10.80×43560×1400\nLess. Advance Adjusted fooon Partners\n= 10,57,00,000-\nBalance\n= 55.2927,200r\nShare of Sanjeev Agrawal@30-% = 16,58781601\nless - first installonen가\n= Spopopoor\n4/10 13/05/2016\nBalance Receivable\n= 11,58,78,160r\nless - Second Installment\nupto 11/08/2016\nAlready paid to Kriplaniti\n= 325,00000\nBalance Payable 01/10 11/08/2016

RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, SEHORE, SEHORE

65,125/-. The\npenalty u/s 271AAC(1) is being imposed after the prior\napproval of the Competent Authority i.e Range Head as\nper the provisions laid down in Section 274(2) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961. This demand should be paid as\nper the demand notice enclosed.\"\n2.2\nThat the assessee being Aggrieved by the aforesaid\n\"Impugned Penalty