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

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

transfer pricing provision cannot apply to the said transaction. Without prejudice to the above 1.7 Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT (A) erred in summarily rejecting the comparability analysis undertaken by the Appellant to benchmark the transaction of provision of corporate guarantee to the AE and adopting the arm’s length price at 0.53% in an arbitrary

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

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

transfer pricing provision cannot apply to the said transaction. Without prejudice to the above 1.7 Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT (A) erred in summarily rejecting the comparability analysis undertaken by the Appellant to benchmark the transaction of provision of corporate guarantee to the AE and adopting the arm’s length price at 0.53% in an arbitrary

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

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

transfer pricing provision cannot apply to the said transaction. Without prejudice to the above 1.7 Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT (A) erred in summarily rejecting the comparability analysis undertaken by the Appellant to benchmark the transaction of provision of corporate guarantee to the AE and adopting the arm’s length price at 0.53% in an arbitrary

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

price of Rs. 42,00,000/- shown in registered-deed and thus made an addition of Rs. 27,52,340/- on account of undisclosed income. The Ld. AO further observed that the assessee had actually received a sum of Rs. 62,00,000/- from Shri Amar Singh [which is disclosed as “Advance for booking” in books of account

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

price of Rs. 42,00,000/- shown in registered-deed and thus made an addition of Rs. 27,52,340/- on account of undisclosed income. The Ld. AO further observed that the assessee had actually received a sum of Rs. 62,00,000/- from Shri Amar Singh [which is disclosed as “Advance for booking” in books of account

M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

price of Rs. 42,00,000/- shown in registered-deed and thus made an addition of Rs. 27,52,340/- on account of undisclosed income. The Ld. AO further observed that the assessee had actually received a sum of Rs. 62,00,000/- from Shri Amar Singh [which is disclosed as “Advance for booking” in books of account

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

price of Rs. 42,00,000/- shown in registered-deed and thus made an addition of Rs. 27,52,340/- on account of undisclosed income. The Ld. AO further observed that the assessee had actually received a sum of Rs. 62,00,000/- from Shri Amar Singh [which is disclosed as “Advance for booking” in books of account

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

price of Rs. 42,00,000/- shown in registered-deed and thus made an addition of Rs. 27,52,340/- on account of undisclosed income. The Ld. AO further observed that the assessee had actually received a sum of Rs. 62,00,000/- from Shri Amar Singh [which is disclosed as “Advance for booking” in books of account

ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S RUCHI J OIL PVT. LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

10) of section 80-IA are applicable; or M/s. Ruchi J. Oil Pvt. Ltd. any other transaction as may be prescribed ,and where the aggregate of such transactions entered into by the assessee in the previous year exceeds a sum of five crore rupees.” Thus, the provisions of section 92BA are attracted when (i) there has to be an expenditure

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

10. Ld. Departmental Representative(DR) apart from relying on Shri Jairam Education Society ITA No.90 & 548/Ind/2019 the detailed finding of Ld. CIT(A) as also referred to the following written submissions placed on record: 4.2) In support of grounds of appeal, the appellant has taken plea that CBDT notification no. 52 and 53 dt. 22110/2014 makes it clear that

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

10. Ld. Departmental Representative(DR) apart from relying on Shri Jairam Education Society ITA No.90 & 548/Ind/2019 the detailed finding of Ld. CIT(A) as also referred to the following written submissions placed on record: 4.2) In support of grounds of appeal, the appellant has taken plea that CBDT notification no. 52 and 53 dt. 22110/2014 makes it clear that

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS ,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

price, it had to be concluded that assessee merely acted as building contractor and not as a developer and, therefore, assessee's claim for deduction under section 80-IB(10) could not be allowed - Held, yes – Whether even otherwise, in view of fact that no completion certificate had been issued to assessee by local authority, in view of sub-clause

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. KUMARI SHEETAL GARG, INDORE

In the result Ground No. 1& 2 of the

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Dcit-3(1), Kumari Sheetal Garg, Indore Vs. 8/2, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Afhpg9179G Revenue By Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ca Date Of Hearing 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 O R D E R

price than that is mentioned in Agreement with the assessee. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that reopening is not valid while the copy of agreement dated 14.12.2006 was not submitted by assessee during the course of assessment proceedings hence, the facts of the agreement

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

transfer, either at the time of purchase or at the time of sale of share by the appellant, treatment of LTCG as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act and confirmation thereof by Ld. CIT(A) is wholly unjustified, improper and bad in law. 06) Section 68: Issue: Burden to prove :- That the Commissioner of Income tax (A) erred

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

transfer of long term 'capital asset' was not includible in total income of the assessee in view of section 10(38) of the Act. 2.2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the evidence tendered by the appellant to support the claim of sale of shares and hence, findings mechanically recorded on borrowed inference

SHRI ABHISHEK GUPTA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

Transfer in Single Scrip of M/s Turbo Tech Engineers Ltd. 6. That on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of AO regarding addition of the Notional Commission calculated on such Share Transaction without any evidence to whom paid. 7. That the appellant reserves its right

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

transfer of long term 'capital asset' was not includible in total income of the assessee in view of section 10(38) of the Act. 2.2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the evidence tendered by the appellant to support the claim of sale of shares and hence, findings mechanically recorded on borrowed inference

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

10 Kgs. to 30 Kgs. The conversion of Kgs into Bars would come to approx. 132 bars and the profit would come @ Rs.800/- per Bar to approx. Rs.1,05,600/-. The assessee has shown the gross profit ofRs.11,50,370/-. Thus, the assessee has shown more profit than estimated by the learned Assessing Officer. Complete details of purchases and sales