DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

u/s 263 of the Act do not stand for as a basis for invoking provisions u/s 263 of the Act. ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari 41. In the instant case, the Learned Assessing officer has raised number of queries regarding the issues now sought to be revised by the CIT which were replied by the assessee through detailed submissions

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

section 263 should be satisfied the objection is not accepted as the AO erred in making sufficient enquiry which resulted in an order prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The judgements relied by the assessee in support of its claim regarding the acceptance of credits u/s. 68. The judgements are respectfully distinguished as it has clearly been held

SATYANARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14

Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue - Assessment year 2004- 05 - Assessee sold an immovable property and claimed capital loss after indexation - Commissioner had doubts about valuation and sale consideration received but he had not examined said aspect himself and had merely given a finding that order passed by Assessing Officer was erroneous as Assessing Officer had not properly

M/S. BHANDARI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

section 119. i) [ITA No.355/Ind/2017] [Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre] The above explanation is c1arificatory in nature. Even before it, the orders made without proper enquiry was liable to be revised u/s 263 of LT. Act. Further this explanation exists as on date on which proceedings u/s 263 have been undertaken and is existing law as on date

RADHESHYAM AGARWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

68, section 69, section 69A,\nsection\n69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of\npenalty, in addition to tax payable under section 115BBE, a sum computed at the rate of ten\nper cent of the tax payable under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 1:15BBE\"\nThe appellant would

M/S. RAJDHANI LAND & HOUSING CORPORATION,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed and

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2007-08 M/S Rajdhani Land & Pr. Cit-1, Housing Corporation, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aahfr4618J Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal & Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ars Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.08.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’ For Short) By Ld. Pr. Cit-1 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 20.09.2019. Rajdhani Land & Housing

68-72] B.Ld. AO based on the documentary evidences placed on record allowed the claim of the assessee u/s BO(IB)(10} of Rs. 1,11,55,537. One of the plausible views was taken by the Ld. AO based on documentary evidences, applicable law and the jurisprudence available at that point of time. 9.Enquiry conducted

ANDRITZ HYDRO P LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing

u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 ( in short the ‘Act’). 2. At first, we shall take up the assessee’s appeal i.e. ITANo.198/Ind/2020 for the assessment year 2014-15 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Andritz Hydro Private Limited (here-in-after referred

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

68 of the Act. Failure of the AO to conduct necessary and proper inquiry renders the order passed by the AO as erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He has relied upon the explanation (2) to section 263(1) of the Act. He has relied upon the impugned order

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SUJALPUR MANDI vs. THE ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,97,139/- made in the business of the assessee, which has been verified from the Accounts maintained in the business of the assessee. 7. It appears from the records that upon examination of the entire set of documents as mentioned hereinabove those were duly submitted before the Ld. AO, the assessment order has been passed accepting the return filed

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SHUJALPUR MANDI vs. ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,97,139/- made in the business of the assessee, which has been verified from the Accounts maintained in the business of the assessee. 7. It appears from the records that upon examination of the entire set of documents as mentioned hereinabove those were duly submitted before the Ld. AO, the assessment order has been passed accepting the return filed

M.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16

revision order passed u/s 263 pursuant to the amendment made w.e.f. 1st June 2015 is bad in law. 5. That the Pr. CIT grossly erred in law in holding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was very casual and passed in a hurried manner did not examine all the material facts of the case and was erroneous

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

revised are that it should be erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. These two conditions are required to be satisfied conjointly. If any of them is not satisfied in that event exercise of power under section 263 of the Act would become bad in law. 12. Now coming to the facts of the present

FAITH BUILDERS & REALTIES P LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1,, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2015-16 Faith Builders & Realties, P. Pr. Cit-1, Ltd., Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No. Aabcf7558A Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.08.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’ For Short) By Ld. Pr. Cit-1 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 31.01.2020.The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

revised 2012) on accounting for real estate transactions under percentage completion method. Further it is observed that assessee disclosed sale, closing stock and net loss for Rs.15,389,800/-, 2 Faith Builders & Realities Ltd. Rs.17,15,47,774/- and Rs.1,04,87,334/- respectively. The assessee furnished details and method of revenue recognition of percentage completion method and resisted

MAA NARMADA AGROTECH AND INFRASTURES LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1 , INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimaa Narmada Agrotech & Pcit Infrastructures Limited Indore -1 Ug-47, Trade Centre, Vs. Kanchan Bagh Main Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcm6285 P Assessee By Shri S.N. Goyal & Shri Pranay Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.07.2023

68,400/-. Subsequently, the AO also passed a rectification order dated 30.07.2020 and rectified the mistake of double disallowance of Rs.1,20,000/- in respect of Tipper Transportation penalty which was also added back to the total income by the assessee itself. Thereafter, the Pr. CIT on examination of the assessment record noticed certain discrepancies and issued show cause notice

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

section 263 cannot be invoked by the Pr. CIT. 8. That Explanation 2 to s. 263 inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015 does not override the law as interpreted by the various High Courts whereby it is held that the CIT cannot treat the AO's order as being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue without himself conducting an enquiry

SHRI NITIN BOTHRA,INDORE vs. HE PCIT -1 INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Nitin Bothra Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abqpb0064J Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

u/s 68. 1 Kamal Chand Bothra HUF 2,75,000 2 Kamal Chand Bothra Individual 4,12,000 3 Anita Bothra 2,00,000 4 Kusum Bothra 6,00,000 4. The Ld. PCIT asked the assesseeto explain as to why the assessment- order may not be revised. In response thereto, the assessee made a detailed Page

M/S. FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD.,DHAR vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 M/S. Flexituff International Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd, Vs. Income Tax-1, C-41-50, Sez, Sector-3, Indore Pithampur, Dist. Dhar (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Aaacn5986H Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit Assessee By Shri Manjit Sachdeva & Avinash Gaur, Advocates Date Of Hearing 26.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 14.05.2019 O R D E R

revision u/s 263 of the Income tax Act. 02. That, the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income tax-I, Indore failed to appreciate that the necessary documents pertaining to the claim of deduction under section 10A(lA), interest on income tax and additional depreciation were before the Assessing Officer. 03. That, the learned Assessing Officer after applying his mind and verifying

ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN vs. A ONE ENCLAVE, UJJAIN

In the result, grounds taken by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1(1), V/S M/S. A One Enclave, Ujjain 3687/1, Hariphatak Road, Ujjain

revision of orders prejudicial to the revenue and set aside the assessment order directing it to be framed afresh as per the directions given in the order u/s 263 of the Act. In compliance thereto Ld. A.O initiated the assessment proceedings afresh by serving u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act to the assessee. 3. During the year