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

block assessment, the Supreme Court held that the\nrequirement to issue notice under section 143(2) was mandatory. It was not \"a\nPage 21 of 28\nDivine Infracreation and Trading Private Limited\nITA No. 272/Ind/2024 – AY 2010-11\nprocedural irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of\nnotice under section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with

M/S SUPREMO INDIA LTD ,INDORE vs. THE AIT CENTRAL 3, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

assessment order though the effect is one and the same the surrendered income (2011) 339 ITR 651 Chhattisgarh cannot be held that it was not an income under the provisions of s.69 of the Act, 1961. As such, the substantial question of law, i.e., (i) and (iii) are answered accordingly.” (Emphasis supplied) 68. The word ‘valuable’ has been defined

ACIT 5 (1), BHOPAL vs. M/S VINDHYA SOLVENT PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Block, Opp. M. P. Nagar, Zone-1, Bhopal PAN No.AACCV6613P (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Shri P. K. Mitra, CIT.DR Appellant by : Respondentby: Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Advocate, Shri S. S. Deshpande, CA & Shri Gagan Tiwari, Advocate Date of Hearing 16.08.2022, 02.06.2022, 30.08.2022 & 01.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal filed

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1,, INDORE vs. SHRI RAJUL BHARGAVA, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

68,000/- (22.50 – 13.0632) i.e. Rs. 4,71,84,000/- is received by the assessee as unaccounted receipts for sale of land at Mayakhedi, which was added to the income of the appellant for AY 2012-13. It is also seen that my predecessor in office had decided the first appeal for AY 2012-13 vide order dated 24.05.2017 wherein

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI RAUNAK MARU, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

68,000/- (22.50 – 13.0632) i.e. Rs. 4,71,84,000/- is received by the assessee as unaccounted receipts for sale of land at Mayakhedi, which was added to the income of the appellant for AY 2012-13. It is also seen that my predecessor in office had decided the first appeal for AY 2012-13 vide order dated 24.05.2017 wherein

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

block assessment proceedings. Thus, considering the entire facts and the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) was fully justified in quashing the reassessment order.” 8.3. The other decisions relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee are on the same proposition. Considering the facts of the case in the light of above decisions, it is clear that loan

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

block assessment proceedings. Thus, considering the entire facts and the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) was fully justified in quashing the reassessment order.” 8.3. The other decisions relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee are on the same proposition. Considering the facts of the case in the light of above decisions, it is clear that loan

M/S. S.R. FERRO ALLOYS,JHABUA vs. THE PCIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

block assessment in case of M/s Nikita Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. which was also subject matter before the Pr. CIT and the disallowance made by the AO on account of depreciation was deleted. Therefore, the assesse as well as M/s. Nikita Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. have been assessed by the same AO and hence the identity and financial statements

SHRI M A KHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) It(Ss)A Nos.37 To 42/Ind/2015 & Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2010-11 Late M.A. Khan Acit 3(1) (Through L/H Nazhat Bhopal Parveen Khan) बनाम/ B-90, Housing Board, Vs. Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan:Aewpk 3620 C Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Shri Vijay Bansal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

Block-assessment” prescribed under Chapter-XIV-B consisting of section 158B to 158BH was applicable, but in respect of searches conducted after 31.05.2003, a new scheme prescribed u/s 153A to 153D is applicable. Ld. DR would further Page 4 of 39 Late M.A. Khan IT(SS)A No.37 to 42/Ind/2015 & ITANo.105/Ind/2015 Assessment year 2004-05 to 2010-11 explain that

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. M.C.S. TRADING COM. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result the appeals of the revenue for Assessment Year

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

68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. 4. a. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in not deciding the issue on merits with respect to the ad-hoc addition of Rs.2,66,835/- made by the AO in the respondent's income

BHOLA SINGH THAKUR,INDORE vs. I T O 4(1), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be deleted or set aside?” 4. The High Court, disagreeing with the Tribunal, held, that the provisions of Section 142 and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 will have mandatory application in a case where the assessing officer in repudiation of return filed in response to a notice issued under

BEYONDKEY SYSTEMS P LTD,INDORE vs. THE DY CIT 1(1), INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Beyondkey Systems Pvt. Dcit 1(1) Ltd. Indore 901A & B, बनाम/ Nrk Business Park, Block B1, Pu4, Vs. Scheme No.54, Vijay Nagar Square, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaccb 7622 G Assessee By Shri Manish Dafaria, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2022 / 16.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

Block B1, PU4, Vs. Scheme No.54, Vijay Nagar Square, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) PAN: AACCB 7622 G Assessee by Shri Manish Dafaria, CA & AR Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 08.12.2022 / 16.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement 18.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 01.07.2022 passed

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P LTD., INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 68 in the immediately preceding assessment year. (xii) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,05,95,837/- made on account of disallowance of interest made to certain parties who not existed in A.Y.2008-09 which has been rightly done by the AO to keep the issue alive. T.P.A.No.601/Ind/2015:(Assessee’s Appeal) (A.Y. 2009-10) On the facts

M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT RANGE 1(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 68 in the immediately preceding assessment year. (xii) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,05,95,837/- made on account of disallowance of interest made to certain parties who not existed in A.Y.2008-09 which has been rightly done by the AO to keep the issue alive. T.P.A.No.601/Ind/2015:(Assessee’s Appeal) (A.Y. 2009-10) On the facts

THE DCIT-1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 68 in the immediately preceding assessment year. (xii) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,05,95,837/- made on account of disallowance of interest made to certain parties who not existed in A.Y.2008-09 which has been rightly done by the AO to keep the issue alive. T.P.A.No.601/Ind/2015:(Assessee’s Appeal) (A.Y. 2009-10) On the facts

M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT -CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 68 in the immediately preceding assessment year. (xii) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,05,95,837/- made on account of disallowance of interest made to certain parties who not existed in A.Y.2008-09 which has been rightly done by the AO to keep the issue alive. T.P.A.No.601/Ind/2015:(Assessee’s Appeal) (A.Y. 2009-10) On the facts

M/S M.P.WAREHOUSING & LOGISTIC CORPORATION,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S M.P. Warehousing Pr. Cit-1 & Logistic Corporation, Bhopal बनाम/ Office Complex, Block-1, Gautam Nagar, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aadcm 7742 B Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

Block-1, Gautam Nagar, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) PAN: AADCM 7742 B Assessee by Shri S.S. Deshpande, AR Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 20.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement 31.03.2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by revision-order dated 19.03.2021 passed by learned Pr. Commissioner of Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE vs. COMMANDER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of assessee are dismissed

68,577/- and had claimed a deduction of Rs.5,80,542/- u/s. 80JJAA of the Act, for which, separate form i.e., Form 10DA was duly e-filed on 23.12.2020. Since, the gross income of the appellant as per the return was Nil, the said deduction could not be claimed. During the course of assessment proceedings, due to disallowance of depreciation