SATYANARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14

AC, Sofa sets, etc e. from the amount of addition re-worked towards taxable LTCG of Rs. 10,30,044 out of which Rs. 3,75,152 was already reported in the return and balance Rs. 6,54,892 was added while making the assessment 4. Ld. AO allowed the claim on being satisfied with the explanation of assessee

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

68. This, as mentioned already, is the residuary entry and only such goods as cannot be brought under the various specific entries in the tariff should be attempted to be brought under the residuary conceivable process of reasoning be brought under any of the tariff items, resort cannot be had to the residuary item." Page 39 of 57 Prataap Snacks

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

68. This, as mentioned already, is the residuary entry and only such goods as cannot be brought under the various specific entries in the tariff should be attempted to be brought under the residuary conceivable process of reasoning be brought under any of the tariff items, resort cannot be had to the residuary item." Page 39 of 57 Prataap Snacks

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

68. This, as mentioned already, is the residuary entry and only such goods as cannot be brought under the various specific entries in the tariff should be attempted to be brought under the residuary conceivable process of reasoning be brought under any of the tariff items, resort cannot be had to the residuary item." Page 39 of 57 Prataap Snacks

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

68. This, as mentioned already, is the residuary entry and only such goods as cannot be brought under the various specific entries in the tariff should be attempted to be brought under the residuary conceivable process of reasoning be brought under any of the tariff items, resort cannot be had to the residuary item." Page 39 of 57 Prataap Snacks

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

68. This, as mentioned already, is the residuary entry and only such goods as cannot be brought under the various specific entries in the tariff should be attempted to be brought under the residuary conceivable process of reasoning be brought under any of the tariff items, resort cannot be had to the residuary item." Page 39 of 57 Prataap Snacks

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

55,238 -1,35,30,926 3,64,88,334 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

DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S MAA UMIYA AGRITECH PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit 1(1) M/S. Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Indore 119, A.B. Road, Aloo Pyaj Mandi, Vs. Indore (Appellant / (Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn8230F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

68 63,04,100/- (as discussed in para 7) (v) On account of undisclosed short term capital gain 45,00,000/- (as discussed in para 8) Total assess Income 5,38,80,006/- 11. The AO rejected the claim of loss only on the ground that nobody has responded to the notice issued however, the return of income as well

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

ac 'income from the house property'. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the income Tax Appellate Tribunal. No orders as to costs." 4.4.1 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its pronouncement dated 11/08/2016 in the case of Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

ac 'income from the house property'. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the income Tax Appellate Tribunal. No orders as to costs." 4.4.1 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its pronouncement dated 11/08/2016 in the case of Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3 (1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. ENTERTAINMENT AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

ac 'income from the house property'. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the income Tax Appellate Tribunal. No orders as to costs." 4.4.1 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its pronouncement dated 11/08/2016 in the case of Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

ac 'income from the house property'. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the income Tax Appellate Tribunal. No orders as to costs." 4.4.1 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its pronouncement dated 11/08/2016 in the case of Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT

THE ACIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. BRILLIANT ESTATE PVT. LTD., INDORE

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

section 14A and also with a view to endow on the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard and not to deprive the appellant the benefits of a plethora of judicial precedents in its favour on this issue, it is submitted: That the Ld. AO erred in disallowing