MAA NARMADA AGROTECH AND INFRASTURES LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1 , INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimaa Narmada Agrotech & Pcit Infrastructures Limited Indore -1 Ug-47, Trade Centre, Vs. Kanchan Bagh Main Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcm6285 P Assessee By Shri S.N. Goyal & Shri Pranay Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.07.2023

68,400/- 03. On examination of the assessment records, following discrepancies are noticed Page 7 of 29 Maa Narmada Agrotech and Infratures Ltd. Page 8 of 29 03.1 On examination of the case records, it was found that as per 26AS of the assessee for the period under consideration, the total receipts of the assessee

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

68 or 69 can not be invoked in case of assesse society. Once the AO has conducted a due inquiry the commissioner without conducting the inquiry or giving an conclusive finding cannot set aside the order of the AO for fresh assessment order. Once the assesse has produced all the material before the AO as well as before

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

54F against the created Long term Capital Gain (LTCG) arose out of so called relinquishment of tenancy rights. Hence, the claim of Long term Capital Gain of Rs. 3,25,00,000/- shown as received from relinquishment of tenancy right is hereby rejected and the said amount is treated as income from other sources in the hand of assessee within

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

SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), INDORE

In the result, both the appeal of assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & And Hon'Ble Manish Borad

54F, Rs. l1.11lakhs on account of 50 C and Rs. 28.73 on account of section 68 as per his predessor

SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), INDORE

In the result, both the appeal of assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & And Hon'Ble Manish Borad

54F, Rs. l1.11lakhs on account of 50 C and Rs. 28.73 on account of section 68 as per his predessor

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

section 68,69 and 69A, 69B and 69C of the said Act arises as the same has not been invoked by the Department. It is an admitted position between the parties as reflected even in the order the Assessing officer that undisclosed income was in fact received by the respondent in the course of carrying out its business activities

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

section 68,69 and 69A, 69B and 69C of the said Act arises as the same has not been invoked by the Department. It is an admitted position between the parties as reflected even in the order the Assessing officer that undisclosed income was in fact received by the respondent in the course of carrying out its business activities

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

section 68,69 and 69A, 69B and 69C of the said Act arises as the same has not been invoked by the Department. It is an admitted position between the parties as reflected even in the order the Assessing officer that undisclosed income was in fact received by the respondent in the course of carrying out its business activities

SMT. CHANDRAVATI KAITHWAS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

section 54F of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the A.O. has disallowed the claim merely on the basis that no satisfactory evidence was produced. In support of this, he submitted that Ld. CIT(A) confirmed this finding on the [ITA 506 & 508/Ind/2016] [Smt. Chandravati Kaithwas & Shri Ashok Kumar Kaithwas, Bhopal] basis that the builder

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAITHWAS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

section 54F of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the A.O. has disallowed the claim merely on the basis that no satisfactory evidence was produced. In support of this, he submitted that Ld. CIT(A) confirmed this finding on the [ITA 506 & 508/Ind/2016] [Smt. Chandravati Kaithwas & Shri Ashok Kumar Kaithwas, Bhopal] basis that the builder

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

Section 263 of the Act. In such matters, to remand the matter/issue to the Assessing Officer would imply and mean the CIT has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed the Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question. 17. This distinction must be kept in mind by the CIT while exercising jurisdiction under

SHRI SUNIL SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE -2(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

68 on account of loan taken from three minor children. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in maintaining the addition of Rs.9,38,756/- on account of disallowing of interest paid to bank on term loan and enhancing the interest income on term loan against FD to Rs.5,20,303/-. [ITA Nos.310 & 312/Ind/2015] [Shri Prabhat Sojatia & Shri Sunil

SHRI PRABHAT SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

68 on account of loan taken from three minor children. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in maintaining the addition of Rs.9,38,756/- on account of disallowing of interest paid to bank on term loan and enhancing the interest income on term loan against FD to Rs.5,20,303/-. [ITA Nos.310 & 312/Ind/2015] [Shri Prabhat Sojatia & Shri Sunil

MOHAMMAD ZAHOOR QURESHI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-4(2), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Paresh M Joshi & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2014-15 Mohammad Zahoor Ito 4(2), Qureshi, Bhopal House No.956, Bagh Farhat Afza Gate Ke Andar, बनाम/ Gali No.2, Vs. Near Rajesh Cycle Aishbagh Stadium, Bhopal

54F to the tune of Rs.47,65,865/- was allowed and balance amount of Rs.68,34,135/- (Rs.1,16,00,000/- (-) Rs.47,65,865/-) was treated as undisclosed Long Term Capital Gain and added to the total income of the assessee. 2.11 That assessee had purchased yet another piece of agriculture land for Rs. 47,65,865/- against market value

KAMLESH MOTWANI,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-2(1),BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

68 Years and R/o 55, Nirmal\nSociety, Gram Mendori, Kerwa Dam Road, Bhopal (M.P.) have to solemnly confirm that\nstatements made at paras1 to 8 hereinabove are true and correct to the best of my knowledge\nand belief.\nkumar\nKamlesh Motwani\nR/o 55, Nirmal Society, Gram Mendori,\nKerwa Dam Road, Bhopal (M.P.)\nBhopal\nReg. Dated: 17.01.2026\n3.\nThe averments made

LATE VINAYAK PURANIK THROUGH LEGAL HEIR YASH PURANIK,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshilate Vinayak Puranik Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ Through L/H Yash 3(2), Vs. Puranik, Indore 7/4, New Palasia, Indore

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1070658744(1) dated 26.11.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The Page 1 of 13 Late Vinayak Puranik through