INCOME TAX OFFICER INDORE 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

sections": [ "143(3)", "68", "142(1)", "139", "253(5)", "46A", "271AAC", "115BBE", "133(6)", "37", "40(b)" ], "issues": "Whether

INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

sections": [ "143(3)", "68", "144B", "46A", "139", "142(1)", "143(2)", "253(5)", "271AAC", "115BBE", "133(6)" ], "issues": "Whether

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. The judgements are respectfully distinguished as it has clearly been held in the preceding discussion that further enquiries are required to be made to ascertain the creditworthiness and genuineness of the companies. M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. The assessee has also submitted that the loans have been repaid through proper banking channel. The submission has no relevance

M/S PLATINUM HORAZINE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

253, subsection (3) of section 249 of the Income Tax Act 1961 used in identical terms in the Limitation Act and the CPC. Such expression has also been used under section 4 of the Income Tax Act 1961 such as sections 273, 274 etc. The expression “’sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of Limitation

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

68.". 4.12 Similarly in the case of Balbir Chand Maini Vs CIT [2011] 12 taxrnann.com 276 (Punjab & Haryana} / [2011] 201 Taxman 94 (Punjab & Haryana) (MAG.) /[2012] 340 ITR 161 (Punjab & Haryana) / [2012] 247 CTR 468 (Punjab & Haryana), Hon'ble Court held:- "Section 69 of the Income-Tax Act,1961-Unexplained investments. AY.1998-99. During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officers found that

ACIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. SANJAY LADDHA, INDORE

sections": [ "143(3)", "143(2)", "142(1)", "68", "115BBE", "145(3)", "44AB", "271AAC", "253(4)" ], "issues": "Whether the addition

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

253/- shown in the audited financial statement and has also not disputed that the assessee society is carrying out charitable activity by way of giving medical relief to poor and also imparting education through Index Medical College and the assessee is regularly carrying out Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 the activities for which it was granted registration u/s 12AA(1

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

253/- shown in the audited financial statement and has also not disputed that the assessee society is carrying out charitable activity by way of giving medical relief to poor and also imparting education through Index Medical College and the assessee is regularly carrying out Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 the activities for which it was granted registration u/s 12AA(1

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

1) of section 253 may appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has power to pass such orders on such an appeal as it thinks fit. Sub section (4) of section 254 attaches finality to, the orders of the Tribunal subject to the provisions of section 256 ( or section 260A). Needless to say the orders passed

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

sections": [ "144", "147", "153(6)", "68", "68(1)", "148", "143(2)", "143(3)", "234A(3)", "13", "11", "253", "254", "80-1", "292BB

KHOJEMA BOHRA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

Appeals are allowed

sections": [ "253", "68", "147", "144B", "271(1)(c)", "115BBE", "246A", "132(4)", "133A", "131" ], "issues": "Whether the loan of Rs. 23,00,000/- claimed

INCME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SWARNA SUKH, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and \"impugned order” is upheld

sections": [ "253", "143(2)", "142(1)", "133(6)", "68", "143(3)", "288A", "246A", "269ST", "115BBE" ], "issues": "Whether the addition

M/S SHRI GURMUKHDAS CONTRACTORS P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-CENRRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in I

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 was warranted in absence of incriminating evidence, in the abated assessment. We hold so. In the result the ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed. 21. We further find that the assessee in response to the show cause notice dated 29.08.2018 filed its detail reply on 14.12.2018. In the said reply the assessee raised factual and legal

THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

1,06,99,464/- for A.Y. 10-11 and Rs. 3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

1,06,99,464/- for A.Y. 10-11 and Rs. 3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

1,06,99,464/- for A.Y. 10-11 and Rs. 3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics

M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

1,06,99,464/- for A.Y. 10-11 and Rs. 3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL vs. SH. PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA, BHOPAL

In the result the “impugned order” is sustained on the first

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit, Prakash Chandra, बनाम/ Bhopal 16/244, Kings Vs. Shopping Centre, Mp Nagar, Zone-I, Bhopal-462011 Madhya Pradesh (Pan:Aappg5194E)

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal as & by way of an Appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060659730(1) dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein after referred