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

66,673/- and deleted extra disallowance. This way, the assessee got part relief in first-appeal. 12. Immediately after narration of these facts, we enquired from Ld. AR the status of AY 2007-08, whether the assessee filed any appeal contesting the issue and if yes, what is present position? Ld. AR requested to give some time to check

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

66,673/- and deleted extra disallowance. This way, the assessee got part relief in first-appeal. 12. Immediately after narration of these facts, we enquired from Ld. AR the status of AY 2007-08, whether the assessee filed any appeal contesting the issue and if yes, what is present position? Ld. AR requested to give some time to check

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

66,673/- and deleted extra disallowance. This way, the assessee got part relief in first-appeal. 12. Immediately after narration of these facts, we enquired from Ld. AR the status of AY 2007-08, whether the assessee filed any appeal contesting the issue and if yes, what is present position? Ld. AR requested to give some time to check

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

66,673/- and deleted extra disallowance. This way, the assessee got part relief in first-appeal. 12. Immediately after narration of these facts, we enquired from Ld. AR the status of AY 2007-08, whether the assessee filed any appeal contesting the issue and if yes, what is present position? Ld. AR requested to give some time to check

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

66,673/- and deleted extra disallowance. This way, the assessee got part relief in first-appeal. 12. Immediately after narration of these facts, we enquired from Ld. AR the status of AY 2007-08, whether the assessee filed any appeal contesting the issue and if yes, what is present position? Ld. AR requested to give some time to check

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

66,673/- and deleted extra disallowance. This way, the assessee got part relief in first-appeal. 12. Immediately after narration of these facts, we enquired from Ld. AR the status of AY 2007-08, whether the assessee filed any appeal contesting the issue and if yes, what is present position? Ld. AR requested to give some time to check

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

66 (SC) Whether in order to invoke section 263 Assessing Officer’s order must be erroneous and also prejudicial to revenue and if one of them is absent, i.e. if order of income-tax officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to revenue, recourse cannot be had to section

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

reassessment under section 147 of the Act, which issue was not\ndecided by the CIT(A), without filing a separate appeal challenging that portion\nof the order of the CIT(A) dated 30-12-2004. A decision on this issue will cover\nsubstantial question of law Nos.1 to 3.\n22.\nIn the case of Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

66,000 3,56,88,065 P Ltd 12 Marino Fresh AABCM2781N 2,81,250 4,35,99,164 Food Indu Ltd Dev Lok 13 Marketing P AAACD9682L 12,36,000 Ltd. 14 Surya Shakti AAECS0505K 9,55,500 4,06,97,791 Marketing PL 15 Super Deal AAECS2143K 1,79,58,750 25,00,46,932 Sales

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

66,000 3,56,88,065 P Ltd 12 Marino Fresh AABCM2781N 2,81,250 4,35,99,164 Food Indu Ltd Dev Lok 13 Marketing P AAACD9682L 12,36,000 Ltd. 14 Surya Shakti AAECS0505K 9,55,500 4,06,97,791 Marketing PL 15 Super Deal AAECS2143K 1,79,58,750 25,00,46,932 Sales

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

66,000 3,56,88,065 P Ltd 12 Marino Fresh AABCM2781N 2,81,250 4,35,99,164 Food Indu Ltd Dev Lok 13 Marketing P AAACD9682L 12,36,000 Ltd. 14 Surya Shakti AAECS0505K 9,55,500 4,06,97,791 Marketing PL 15 Super Deal AAECS2143K 1,79,58,750 25,00,46,932 Sales

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&

66,54,794 6,95,33,60,427 9. We will first take up revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2017- 18,, commonly raising a ground that ld. CIT(A) erred in granting deduction u/s 80(IA)(4) of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee company is a “works contractor” and not a “developer

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&

66,54,794 6,95,33,60,427 9. We will first take up revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2017- 18,, commonly raising a ground that ld. CIT(A) erred in granting deduction u/s 80(IA)(4) of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee company is a “works contractor” and not a “developer

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&

66,54,794 6,95,33,60,427 9. We will first take up revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2017- 18,, commonly raising a ground that ld. CIT(A) erred in granting deduction u/s 80(IA)(4) of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee company is a “works contractor” and not a “developer

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&

66,54,794 6,95,33,60,427 9. We will first take up revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2017- 18,, commonly raising a ground that ld. CIT(A) erred in granting deduction u/s 80(IA)(4) of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee company is a “works contractor” and not a “developer

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&

66,54,794 6,95,33,60,427 9. We will first take up revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2017- 18,, commonly raising a ground that ld. CIT(A) erred in granting deduction u/s 80(IA)(4) of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee company is a “works contractor” and not a “developer

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&

66,54,794 6,95,33,60,427 9. We will first take up revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2017- 18,, commonly raising a ground that ld. CIT(A) erred in granting deduction u/s 80(IA)(4) of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee company is a “works contractor” and not a “developer

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&

66,54,794 6,95,33,60,427 9. We will first take up revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2017- 18,, commonly raising a ground that ld. CIT(A) erred in granting deduction u/s 80(IA)(4) of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee company is a “works contractor” and not a “developer