JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act on account of share application money received from M/s SKS Ispat and Power Limited. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 20. Before us, the Ld. CIt-DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. AO. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the findings

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act on account of share application money received from M/s SKS Ispat and Power Limited. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 20. Before us, the Ld. CIt-DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. AO. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the findings

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act on account of share application money received from M/s SKS Ispat and Power Limited. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 20. Before us, the Ld. CIt-DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. AO. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the findings

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

68 taxmann.com 129 (Kolkata - Trib.) Sanjay Lunawat ITA No.396/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.32/Ind/2018 New Alignment v. ITO, Ward-51(4), Kolkata - [2016] 69 taxmann.com 122 (Kolkata - Trib.) Punjab Goods Transport (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, Ward-12(3), Kolkata - [2017] 77 taxmann.com 37 (Kolkata - Trib.) Brijgopal Madhusudan Bhattad v. ITO, Khamgaon - [2015] 61 taxmann.com 266 (Nagpur - Trib.) 34. On consideration of above facts

M/S ASHOKA HI-TECH BUILDERS P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

In the result Ground No.1 and 2 of the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

3) of the Act, we report that: In our opinion, the Balance Sheet, Statement of Profit and Loss, comply with the mandatory Accounting Standards referred to in sub-section (3C) of section 211 of the Companies Act, except AS-7 and AS-9, read together with Notes op: Accounts as per Note 11 annexed with Balance Sheet

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

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

68 of the Act is not applicable in the instant case as this proviso refers to the cash credits during the year which are in the nature of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name. Specifically it does not talk about the unsecured loans where as in the instant appeal the assessee have

KUSUM YADAV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

129 taxmann.com 44\n(SC). In the said case, involving A.Y. 2009-10, the Assessee therein\nhad claimed to have taken loan of huge amount from an entity.\nAssessing Officer held that said loan received by assessee was bogus\nand accordingly, made additions under section 68 to income of\nassessee. The Hon'ble High Court by impugned order held

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-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

129-130 ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari 35. Assessee had filed submissions with documentary evidence on 26.8.13, 24.2.14, 10.3.14, 20.8.14 and 23.9.15. The submissions made on the above referred dates are mentioned below:- Copy of letter dated 26.8.2013. With reference to above, we are submitting the following documents as required by you vide above cited notice:- I. Letter

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 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

129-130 ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari 35. Assessee had filed submissions with documentary evidence on 26.8.13, 24.2.14, 10.3.14, 20.8.14 and 23.9.15. The submissions made on the above referred dates are mentioned below:- Copy of letter dated 26.8.2013. With reference to above, we are submitting the following documents as required by you vide above cited notice:- I. Letter

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

129-130 ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari 35. Assessee had filed submissions with documentary evidence on 26.8.13, 24.2.14, 10.3.14, 20.8.14 and 23.9.15. The submissions made on the above referred dates are mentioned below:- Copy of letter dated 26.8.2013. With reference to above, we are submitting the following documents as required by you vide above cited notice:- I. Letter

SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN CHUORSIYA,RAJGARH vs. THE PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Krishna Mohan Pr. Cit Choursiya(Prop. Of M/S Laxmi Ujjain Mp बनाम/ Auto Parts) Vs. Ward No.14, Bus Stand, Kurawar Rajgarh(M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aempc3634G

68 of the Income Tax Act, 12,86,090 1961 5 On account of net profit being estimated at 8% 4,12,148 Total 1,18,43,978 The assessee then preferred an appeal before the Ld CIT [A], Ujjain against the assessment order as passed under section 143[3] of the Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

129 was issued on 4/9 Page 4 of 116 ITANo.794/Ind/2018 & IT(SS)A No.14 & 07/Ind/2022 Ritesh Jain & M.P. Agro Nutri Food Ltd. / 2017 and duly served through speed post. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) alongwith questionnaire was issued on 5/9 / 20 17 and duly served upon assessee. Further, the assessee filed objection on 10/10 / 2017 for issue of notice

THE DCIT, 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. MODERN LABORATORIES, INDORE

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ ./ ./ I.T.A. No.277 & Co.16/Ind/2014 ./ "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09

129 ITR 105 (Guj). This explain the role of commission agents in government contract and describes the details of service rendered by them in such contracts. On merits, the CIT (A) observed that there is mismatch in the case of M/s. Apex Pharmaceuticals, Bhopal regarding bills and TDS and variation of commission payments from 1% to 25%. The appellant explained

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

68 required as per Rule 129 in accordance of the provisions of section 270AA of the Act for immunity from penalty proceedings u/s 270A, hence order u/s 270AA(4) cannot be passed in the case of the assessee and immunity from imposition of penalty cannot be granted to the assessee. The case laws quoted by the assessee have been

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

68,106/- 206,811/- 3 26-03-2012 Satguru Polyfab Pvt. Ltd DTA Unit 150,51,853/- 15,05,185/- Total 389,83,611/- 38,98,361/- Since, assessee has purchased old and used plant & machinery and claimed additional depreciation for the same was not allowable in view of provision of section 32. Hence, the excess depreciation of Rs.38

M/S. VPA CIVILCON (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & T.R. Senthil Kumar

129, 137 (mad); Shivaputrappa Channappa Mungoli v. Ag ITO, (1986)160 ITR 123 (Karn); K.N. Agrawal v. CIT, (1991) 189 ITR 769, 772 (All); Keshrimal Bapulal v. CIT, (2001) 252 ITR 764, 769 (MP); Shy am Sundar Agrawal v. State of Assam, (2003) 131 ITR 70, 72-73hl following Rajendra Singh v. Superitendent of taxes