S GANDHI JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18 S. Gandhi Jewellery Pcit-1, Private Limited, Indore C/O Adv. Hitesh Chimnani, बनाम/ Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18, South Tukoganj, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aamcs1613G Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

revision u/s 263 due to three-fold reasons. These reasons are very succinctly narrated by Ld. AR in Para 13 of his Written-Synopsis, we re-produce the same: “13. In this respect, the brief submissions of the assessee are as follows: 1. The assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. PCIT on 23.02.2024 when an appeal had been filed

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

price (MSP Samarthan Mulya) & other source is sale of fertilizers to farmers. (2) Please furnish the copy of following documents/detail for the AY 2016-17 (i.e. FY 2015-16). • Income Tax Return Attached for your reference • Computation of Income Attached for your reference Audit report with all annexure Attached for your reference ⚫ Profit & Loss A/c (With Schedule) Attached for your

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

u/s 40A(2)(b) and in Form 3CEB i.e. as transactions covered u/s 92BA(i). 5.2. The Finance Act, 2017 omitted section 92BA(i). The effect of such omission was that the transactions with persons referred to in section 40A(2)(b) do not fall within the ambit of domestic transfer pricing regulations w.e.f. 01.04.2017. After omission of Section 92BA

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

u/s 40A(2)(b) and in Form 3CEB i.e. as transactions covered u/s 92BA(i). 5.2. The Finance Act, 2017 omitted section 92BA(i). The effect of such omission was that the transactions with persons referred to in section 40A(2)(b) do not fall within the ambit of domestic transfer pricing regulations w.e.f. 01.04.2017. After omission of Section 92BA

THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

u/s 40A(2)(b) and in Form 3CEB i.e. as transactions covered u/s 92BA(i). 5.2. The Finance Act, 2017 omitted section 92BA(i). The effect of such omission was that the transactions with persons referred to in section 40A(2)(b) do not fall within the ambit of domestic transfer pricing regulations w.e.f. 01.04.2017. After omission of Section 92BA

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. SHAKTI PUMPS (INDIA) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit (Central)-2, Shakti Pumps (India) Ltd. Indore 226, Shastri Market, बनाम/ M.G. Road, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaecs 5027 L Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Vijay Bansal, Ars Date Of Hearing 23/11/2022 / 22.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.04.2023

revision- proceeding u/s 263; the fact is that the CIT(A) has duly considered the controversy at length on merits from all angles and thereafter granted relief. 8. Finally, Ld. AR read over the findings/conclusions made by CIT(A) line by line and argued that his order is well-reasoned and does not require any interference. 9. We have considered

M/S PARTH DEVELOPERS,DHAR vs. THE PCIT -1, INDORER

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Parth Developers Pr. Cit-1 Manawar Dist. Indore Vs. Dhar (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aalfp 4509 N Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2023

revision of the assessment order passed u/s. 143 (3) of the Act by the Income Tax Officer-Dhar, (the AO") 2.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT has erred in passing the order u/s 263 on the alleged ground that the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) was erroneous and/or prejudicial

ANDRITZ HYDRO P LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing

u/s 37(1) of the act notwithstanding the fact that the liability had not been actually discharged in the year in which the fluctuation in the rate of foreign exchange had occurred. The ld. CIT(A) noted that the business of ONGC was not that of foreign exchange dealer and the similar loss was still held to be allowable

D.K. CONSTRUCTIONS,BHOPAL vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 D.K.Constructions, Pcit (Central), Dk Cottage, Bhopal 24, Carat E8, बनाम/ Near Gujrati Colony,, Vs. Bawadiya Kalan, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaafd7121P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

u/s 56(2)(x)(b) qua ‘another property’ is pending before CIT(A) and therefore the PCIT is barred from invoking revisionary action in terms of Explanation 1(c) to section 263 is concerned, we re-produce below the said Explanation 1(c) for an immediate reference, which reads as under: “(c) Where any order referred to in this

HASSANAND KHEMLANI,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1 ,INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the income tax act should be dropped. We assure your good self to furnish any further information or details as may be required by you. ITA Nos. 138 & 110/Ind/2021 [Kalpana Jain & Hasanand Khemlani] Asst.Year.– 2016-17 - 13 - We have properly explained the deduction claimed u/s 54/54F in respect of both house properties exchanged

KALPANA JAIN,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the income tax act should be dropped. We assure your good self to furnish any further information or details as may be required by you. ITA Nos. 138 & 110/Ind/2021 [Kalpana Jain & Hasanand Khemlani] Asst.Year.– 2016-17 - 13 - We have properly explained the deduction claimed u/s 54/54F in respect of both house properties exchanged

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE CIT (TDS), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

revision-order dated 27.03.2014, the AO also passed newer order dated 28.07.2014 u/s 201(1)/(1A) r.w.s. 263 wherein he created demand of TDS u/s 194H out of certain amounts allowed to distributors/dealers of pre-paid vouchers as well as u/s 194J out of roaming charges paid to OTOs plus interest. Aggrieved by such order, the assessee filed first-appeal

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

revision-order dated 27.03.2014, the AO also passed newer order dated 28.07.2014 u/s 201(1)/(1A) r.w.s. 263 wherein he created demand of TDS u/s 194H out of certain amounts allowed to distributors/dealers of pre-paid vouchers as well as u/s 194J out of roaming charges paid to OTOs plus interest. Aggrieved by such order, the assessee filed first-appeal

DILIP CHANDRASENRO MAHADIK,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Dilip Chandrasenrao Pr.Cit-2, Mahadik, Indore. बनाम/ 479, Kalani Nagar, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abwpm3141M Assessee By S/Shri Rajnish Vohra, Chetan Khandelwal & Nitesh Dawira, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023

transfer expenses for sale of Rs. 8,78,515/- in his return of income. Perusal of the case record reveals that during the period relevant to the assessment year 2015-16, the assessee has sold two properties. In the return of income the assessee disclosed sale consideration amount of Rs. 65,30,000/- and Long Term Capital Gain worked

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE vs. COMMANDER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of assessee are dismissed

u/s. 80JJAA of the Act, for which, separate form i.e., Form 10DA was duly e-filed on 23.12.2020. Since, the gross income of the appellant as per the return was Nil, the said deduction could not be claimed. During the course of assessment proceedings, due to disallowance of depreciation on goodwill of Rs. 7,30,26,302/-u/s.32