PARTH KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (I), INDORE , INDORE

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

B of the Act.” 6.10 From a perusal of the facts of the aforesaid decision it transpires that the issue in question before the co-ordinate bench was the legality or otherwise of the order passed under section 263 and while examining that issue an additional issue that arose for consideration of the Delhi Tribunal was that

M/S NISHANT FINANCE PVT.LTD,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL (I), INDORE, INDORE

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

B of the Act.” 6.10 From a perusal of the facts of the aforesaid decision it transpires that the issue in question before the co-ordinate bench was the legality or otherwise of the order passed under section 263 and while examining that issue an additional issue that arose for consideration of the Delhi Tribunal was that

SUMATI KUMAR KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE

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

B of the Act.” 6.10 From a perusal of the facts of the aforesaid decision it transpires that the issue in question before the co-ordinate bench was the legality or otherwise of the order passed under section 263 and while examining that issue an additional issue that arose for consideration of the Delhi Tribunal was that

SHRIMATI SHARDA KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (I), INDORE, INDORE

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

B of the Act.” 6.10 From a perusal of the facts of the aforesaid decision it transpires that the issue in question before the co-ordinate bench was the legality or otherwise of the order passed under section 263 and while examining that issue an additional issue that arose for consideration of the Delhi Tribunal was that

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD.,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE

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

B of the Act.” 6.10 From a perusal of the facts of the aforesaid decision it transpires that the issue in question before the co-ordinate bench was the legality or otherwise of the order passed under section 263 and while examining that issue an additional issue that arose for consideration of the Delhi Tribunal was that

MANOJ KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (1), INDORE, INDORE

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

B of the Act.” 6.10 From a perusal of the facts of the aforesaid decision it transpires that the issue in question before the co-ordinate bench was the legality or otherwise of the order passed under section 263 and while examining that issue an additional issue that arose for consideration of the Delhi Tribunal was that

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

149/- received donations at Rs. 140675754/- and therefore learned Assessing Officer directed to furnish the complete list of the donors along with their address and the appellant was directed to produce details. That, the assessee submitted the details on 03.03.2016 and as per the assessment order itself the list comprised of 27746 persons. The said list contained the serial number

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

149/- received donations at Rs. 140675754/- and therefore learned Assessing Officer directed to furnish the complete list of the donors along with their address and the appellant was directed to produce details. That, the assessee submitted the details on 03.03.2016 and as per the assessment order itself the list comprised of 27746 persons. The said list contained the serial number

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

section 14A was warranted, was a debatable fact. In any event, even if it were not debatable, the error by the Assessing Officer is not “unsustainable”. Possibly he could have taken another view; yet, that he did not do so, would not render his opinion an unsustainable one, warranting exercise of section 263.” 43. Hon’ble Gujarat High

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

section 14A was warranted, was a debatable fact. In any event, even if it were not debatable, the error by the Assessing Officer is not “unsustainable”. Possibly he could have taken another view; yet, that he did not do so, would not render his opinion an unsustainable one, warranting exercise of section 263.” 43. Hon’ble Gujarat High

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

section 14A was warranted, was a debatable fact. In any event, even if it were not debatable, the error by the Assessing Officer is not “unsustainable”. Possibly he could have taken another view; yet, that he did not do so, would not render his opinion an unsustainable one, warranting exercise of section 263.” 43. Hon’ble Gujarat High

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

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

149, Section 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132-A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish

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

section 263 i.e. order should be erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of revenue are not satisfied. 9. Being erroneous always refers to ‘being an error of law / jurisdiction’ i.e. an incorrect application of law. An order passed by an Assessing Officer can be treated as erroneous if the view taken by the assessing officer is unsustainable

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

1 kgm Silver bar was sold with a profit in the range of Rs. 500'/- to Rs 800/- during the reference year. In view of the above, gross profit earned on sale of per Silver bar is determined at Rs. 800/- In this regard the reply given for Gross Profit estimation in case of Gold KG Bars is equally applicable

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

1 kgm Silver bar was sold with a profit in the range of Rs. 500'/- to Rs 800/- during the reference year. In view of the above, gross profit earned on sale of per Silver bar is determined at Rs. 800/- In this regard the reply given for Gross Profit estimation in case of Gold KG Bars is equally applicable

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

1 kgm Silver bar was sold with a profit in the range of Rs. 500'/- to Rs 800/- during the reference year. In view of the above, gross profit earned on sale of per Silver bar is determined at Rs. 800/- In this regard the reply given for Gross Profit estimation in case of Gold KG Bars is equally applicable

YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY (P) LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN FROLIC REALTY (P) LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(1) , INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1 and page 585 of Paper Book No.2 filed by the assessee. It is the case of the assessee that the amount could not be added in the hands of the assessee in the current year since the same was not received in the current year and the same was duly accounted for the earlier year. As the assessee followed

DCIT-4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COM. PVT. LTD., TALOJA, RAIGARH

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1 and page 585 of Paper Book No.2 filed by the assessee. It is the case of the assessee that the amount could not be added in the hands of the assessee in the current year since the same was not received in the current year and the same was duly accounted for the earlier year. As the assessee followed