ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,732/- 18 3. Shri Utpal Goyal 1,31,868/- 18 4. Shri Narendra Barta 8,58,336/- 16 Total 45,65,847/- 5. According to the Ld. AO, such excess interest to the persons covered under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act was not available in terms of the provisions of the said Section and thus

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,732/- 18 3. Shri Utpal Goyal 1,31,868/- 18 4. Shri Narendra Barta 8,58,336/- 16 Total 45,65,847/- 5. According to the Ld. AO, such excess interest to the persons covered under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act was not available in terms of the provisions of the said Section and thus

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,732/- 18 3. Shri Utpal Goyal 1,31,868/- 18 4. Shri Narendra Barta 8,58,336/- 16 Total 45,65,847/- 5. According to the Ld. AO, such excess interest to the persons covered under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act was not available in terms of the provisions of the said Section and thus

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 is not permitted to substitute his estimate of income in place of the income estimated by the Assessing Officer. (vii) The Assessing Officer exercises quasi-judicial power vested in him and if he exercises such power in accordance with law and arrive at a conclusion, such conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the Commissioner

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

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

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 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

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

AMALTAS HOTELS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3 (1), INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2003-04 M/S. Amaltas Hotels Dcit, Private Limited, Circle 3(1), बनाम/ 2, R.K. Puram Colony, Indore. A.B.Road, Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aabca4859K Assessee By Shri Manjeet Sachdeva & Shri Avinash Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2023

68 to AO with a direction for fresh examination and re-adjudication after opportunity to assessee. Thereafter, in pursuance of such direction of ITAT, the AO passed a fresh assessment-order dated 31.03.2014 u/s 143(3) read with section 254

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

68,227/- on which no interest was received. Thus, the assessee has advanced the money for non business purposes. The assessee had advances money to the staff and others. The interest of Rs.3,60,465/- has been paid for the loan taken for purchase of car. No borrowed funds were advanced and the interest is paid on the borrowings

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

68,227/- on which no interest was received. Thus, the assessee has advanced the money for non business purposes. The assessee had advances money to the staff and others. The interest of Rs.3,60,465/- has been paid for the loan taken for purchase of car. No borrowed funds were advanced and the interest is paid on the borrowings

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

68,227/- on which no interest was received. Thus, the assessee has advanced the money for non business purposes. The assessee had advances money to the staff and others. The interest of Rs.3,60,465/- has been paid for the loan taken for purchase of car. No borrowed funds were advanced and the interest is paid on the borrowings

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

68,227/- on which no interest was received. Thus, the assessee has advanced the money for non business purposes. The assessee had advances money to the staff and others. The interest of Rs.3,60,465/- has been paid for the loan taken for purchase of car. No borrowed funds were advanced and the interest is paid on the borrowings

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

section 68 have been invoked and in particular, whether any such information pertained to the loans claimed to have been obtained by the assessee company from such companies. In such eventuality, the Revenue cannot be permitted to proceed against the assessee without first confronting the exact information and enquiries to the assessee. 16.8 In the aforesaid facts and circumstances

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

section 68 have been invoked and in particular, whether any such information pertained to the loans claimed to have been obtained by the assessee company from such companies. In such eventuality, the Revenue cannot be permitted to proceed against the assessee without first confronting the exact information and enquiries to the assessee. 16.8 In the aforesaid facts and circumstances

ACIT (CENTRAL) , UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S GLOBUS HOUSING PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central) M/S. Globus Housing Pvt. Ltd. 176, Zone-Ii, First Floor, M.P. Ujjain Vs. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Aaecg 0623 J Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Yash Kukreja, Ars Date Of Hearing 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

68 cannot be made on the ground that the source of third person has not been proved satisfactory due to cash deposit in the bank account of those three persons. Further when the AO has examined the loan taken by Shri Bhatija in his assessment proceedings then the addition in the hands of the assesse company is not justified

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

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

68 of 127 50 SOT 134 (Ahm.Trib), Mastek Limited vs. Addl. CIT, (2012) 53 SOT 111 (Ahm.), LGEC – NCC vs. ITO, (2014) 37 taxmann.com 402 (I.T.A.T. Hyd.). The assessee has further relied on the decision of CIT vs. EKL Appliances Limited, (2012) 345 ITR 241(Del), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has affirmed the use of OECD guidelines