AABHUSHAN,DHAMNOD, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO DHAR, DHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaabhushan Dhamnod Ito, Dhar 1St Floor, Ganpati Market Ab Road Dhamnod Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abgfa0812K Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & Shri S.N. Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024 O R D E R

AB Road Dhamnod Vs. MP (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: ABGFA0812K Assessee by Shri Pranay Goyal & Shri S.N. Goyal, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 09.05.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM : This appeal by assessee is directed against the order dated 16.08.2023 of the Commissioner

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

ab-initio. 1.2 That the AO having already added the surrendered income of 7 crore there cannot be any prejudice attributed u/s 263 and thus the order of assessment dated 24.3.2015 cannot be regarded as prejudicial to the interest of revenue merely because ld. CIT held that the AO should have acted as a police officer

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

ab-initio. 1.2 That the AO having already added the surrendered income of 7 crore there cannot be any prejudice attributed u/s 263 and thus the order of assessment dated 24.3.2015 cannot be regarded as prejudicial to the interest of revenue merely because ld. CIT held that the AO should have acted as a police officer

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

ab-initio. 1.2 That the AO having already added the surrendered income of 7 crore there cannot be any prejudice attributed u/s 263 and thus the order of assessment dated 24.3.2015 cannot be regarded as prejudicial to the interest of revenue merely because ld. CIT held that the AO should have acted as a police officer

BARKHA KHANDELWAL,AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1),INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Barkha Khandelwal Ito -3(1) Aggrieved Assesse Indore 1108, Pinnacle D Dreams, Tower -1 Vs. Near Bhawan Prominent School Pipliyakumar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ajnpk4150B Assessee By Shri Rakesh Gupta, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20 .09.2024

68, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. Page 3 of 13 ITANo.85/Ind/2024 Barkha Khandelwal 13. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action

RNG CONSTRUCTION CO,INDRA NAGAR vs. DCIT-CPC, CPC-BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshirng Construction Co. Dcit-Cpc बनाम/ 14, Sector-A, Vs. Indira Nagar, Mandideep (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqfr9084B Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025

35,000/- on account of unexplained loans u/s 68, and (b) disallowance of Rs. 5,26,439/- on account of Late GST fee (Rs. 1,000/-), Interest on VAT Tax (Rs. 53,779/-), Interest on TDS (Rs. 488/-), Penal damages (Rs. 1,27,540/-) and VAT Tax of 14-15 (Rs. 3,43,632/-). (iii) While the scrutiny-assessment

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

35. Thus, it appears that the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act places a bar on issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year in cases wherein assessment was originally completed under section

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

35. Thus, it appears that the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act places a bar on issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year in cases wherein assessment was originally completed under section

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

35. Thus, it appears that the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act places a bar on issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year in cases wherein assessment was originally completed under section

NILIMA KOTHARI,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSTT. CENTRE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

ab-initio void hence assessment order passed should have been quashed. 03) Issue: Validity of Information for issuance of notice under section 148 : That the Commissioner of Income tax (A) erred in law in not appreciating the fact that notice under section 148 of the Act was based on information received from SEBI regarding transactions in equity shares

CHIRAYU CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,BHOPAL vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradchirayu Charitable Pcit (Central), Foundation,Bhopal Indore Bhopal Highway, Bhaisakhedi, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aaaac3656P Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Advocate, Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar, Advs Date Of Hearing 05.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement .02.2021 O R D E R Per Manish Borad, Am.

ab) of sub-section (1) of section 12A. (3) Where a trust or an institution has been granted registration under clause (b) of sub-section (1) or has obtained registration at any time under section 12A as it stood before its amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996 (33 of 1996) and subsequently the Principal

LATE MANOHARASINGH THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI SURAJ MANDLOI,INDORE vs. ITO 1(1), INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2017-18 Late Manoharasingh Income-Tax Officer, (Through Legal Heir Shri 1(1), Suraj Mandloi), Indore. बनाम/ 34, Village Begam Kheri, Vs. P.O.Burana Kheri, Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan : Blspm9380B Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2024

ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 3. The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 11,35,500/- without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the rate of tax @ 60% u/s 115BBE

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

68,71,414 remuneration and [ITA No.355/Ind/2017] [Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre] interest to the partners Profit after excluding other income & 2,10,72,278 49,76,658 6,32,77,054 3,36,60,134 depreciation (D)={A-B+C} Profit ratio (D/A) 28.99% 4.70% 16.84% 12.65% Consequently the profit ratio is positive and is better than the immediately preceding

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AVILABLE FINANCE LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

ab-inito, without jurisdiction and bad in law and it is prayed that the same very kindly be now quashed. 2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned CITCA) erred in not appreciating and not accepting the contention of the assessee that the impugned reopening proceedings initiated in this case were

DY. CIT -1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

ab-inito, without jurisdiction and bad in law and it is prayed that the same very kindly be now quashed. 2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned CITCA) erred in not appreciating and not accepting the contention of the assessee that the impugned reopening proceedings initiated in this case were

M/S AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD.,INDORE vs. THEDCIT 1(1) , INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

ab-inito, without jurisdiction and bad in law and it is prayed that the same very kindly be now quashed. 2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned CITCA) erred in not appreciating and not accepting the contention of the assessee that the impugned reopening proceedings initiated in this case were

ACIT CENTRAL-2 INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI .GAURAV TEKRIWAL, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

AB Road, Indore, which was jointly owned by Shri Dipesh Khandelwal and others. The assessee claimed to have surrendered such Page 2 of 38 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Assessment year 2015-16 sub-tenancy right and received a sum of Rs. 3,25,00,000/- as consideration therefor vide Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 02.05.2014, a copy placed in the Paper

SHRI SANJAY GUPTA,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

35, Siyaganj Main Road, Indore. Indore - 452001. [PAN – ACFPG 6576 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Kailash Agrawal, AR Respondent by : Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 13.06.2022 Date of pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 21.06.2019 passed