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

TDS on salaries paid to the doctors. 2. The effective ground in this appeal is against the legality and justification of the order dated 30.03.2017 of invoking the provisions of u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hereinafter refer to as the Act, thereby revising the assessment order. [ITA No.355/Ind/2017] [Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre] 3. By way of this

SHRI VINOD KUMAR JAIN,RAISEN vs. THE ITO, VIDISHA

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Vinod Kumar Jain Ito R/O Mig 20 Patel Nagar Vs. Vidisha Mandideep Dist. Raisen (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aaqpj8582Q Appellant By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Shri V.J. Boricha Sr., Dr Date Of Hearing 14.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2020 O R D E R

business activity are included in the audited trading account of M/s. Vinod Kumar Jain. Thus, receipts credited in separate set of books of M/s. V.K. Transport was considered as income but expenditure was disallowed on the same grounds stated by the AO vide para-7(g) of the appellate order. While confirming the disallowance he also observed following discrepancies

M/S. ALANKAR JEWELLWER,VIDISHA vs. THE ACIT- II, VIDISHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessees in

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2016-17 M/S. Alankar Jewellers Acit-Ii Nikasha Road, Vidisha Bhopal बनाम/ Vidisha Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aavfa1527D It(Ss)A No.205/Ind/2019 Assessment Year:2016-17 Acit-Ii M/S. Alankar Jewellers Bhopal Nikasha Road, Vidisha बनाम/ Vidisha Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aavfa1527D Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Respondent By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad:

business and the business premises were found vacant. x. There were some discrepancies in the entries appearing in the seized hard disk in comparison with the details submitted on 12.12.2014. With regard to observations made by the AO it was observed that the appellant has been dealing with these supplier from long time and transactions with these suppliers are also

SHRI LAV NARANG,UJJAIN vs. PCIT,, UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16

TDS deducted thereon claimed in the Income Tax Return the FDR’s are part of the business of Civil Construction

MILLION TRADERS BHOPAL P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

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

TDS and it is in the nature of tax on income which has been collected at source in respect of specified business

MILLION TRADERS BHOPAL P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

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

TDS and it is in the nature of tax on income which has been collected at source in respect of specified business

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

business which is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the trust. It is relevant to note that the provisions of section 11(4A) do not override the provisions of section 10 of the Income Tax Act, and as such, profits derived by any trust , institution, association etc. referred to in clauses (21), (23A), (23B), (23BB), (23C), etc. will

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

business which is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the trust. It is relevant to note that the provisions of section 11(4A) do not override the provisions of section 10 of the Income Tax Act, and as such, profits derived by any trust , institution, association etc. referred to in clauses (21), (23A), (23B), (23BB), (23C), etc. will

ASIAN BUSINESS CONECTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT - 1(1) , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2015-16 M/S. Asian Business Dcit-1(1), Connections Private Ltd, Vs. Bhopal Fm-18, Man Sarovar Complex, 7No. Stop, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaica1206D

Business Connection Private Limited TDS of Rs. 60,43,900/- were made and the income was assessed at Rs. 2,97,16,45,750/-. 6. Aggrieved

DINESH RAMNANI,NEEMUCH vs. ITO, NEEMUCH

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidinesh Ramnani Ito 28, Gayatri Mandir Road Delhi Vs. Neemuch (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aehpr 9729L Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2023

income amount to Rs 40/0,201 Rable to be deleted. 6.Because alternatively, as stated in preceding Grounds of Appeal serialy numbered 4, the disallowance of commission expenses amounting to s 40,90,292/ is not factually justified in as much as the commission expenses has not been directly paid by the assessee to the sub-dealerts) and becau of this

THE DCIT CIRCLE 5(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S L N MALVIYA INFRA PROJECTS P LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit, Circle 5(1) M/S. L.N. Malviya Infra Projects Bhopal Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.29, F/F Sector, Dwarka Vs. New Delhi

TDS by the assessee would not be an allowable claim of expenditure. Though the same may not fall in the ambit of explanation-1 to section 37(1) of the Act but the said expenditure cannot be regarded as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assesse. The income

M/S. SANEE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT , BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Sanee Infrastructure Pr.Cit-2, Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Bhopal D-1, Machna Colony, 6 No Bus Stop, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aagcs8307M Appellant By Shri Arun Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit Date Of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01.06.2020 O R D E R

business of civil construction. Return of income declaring income of Rs. 46,98,020/- for the Assessment Year 2015-16 was filed on 30.09.2015. Case selected under limited scrutiny followed by serving valid notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1)of the Act. The case was selected under limited scrutiny for following reasons; (i) High ratio of refund to TDS

M/S PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

business and would be entitled for such deduction. In the instance case, the declaration was offered in the regular return filed and offered for taxation in Profit & Loss account – Income from Hospital. Thus, the source was established and thus is eligible income u/s 80IB(11C). GROUND NO 5 TO 7: DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(a)(ia) FACTS 1. The appellant- firm

M/S. PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

business and would be entitled for such deduction. In the instance case, the declaration was offered in the regular return filed and offered for taxation in Profit & Loss account – Income from Hospital. Thus, the source was established and thus is eligible income u/s 80IB(11C). GROUND NO 5 TO 7: DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(a)(ia) FACTS 1. The appellant- firm

M/S. PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

business and would be entitled for such deduction. In the instance case, the declaration was offered in the regular return filed and offered for taxation in Profit & Loss account – Income from Hospital. Thus, the source was established and thus is eligible income u/s 80IB(11C). GROUND NO 5 TO 7: DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(a)(ia) FACTS 1. The appellant- firm

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

business income. Such injudicious and unlawful findings, therefore, be quashed. 4. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred and not justified in not allowing the deduction of Rs.5826598/- u/s 11(1)(a) as an application of income. The said deduction as claimed in the return, therefore, be kindly allowed

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

business income. Such injudicious and unlawful findings, therefore, be quashed. 4. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred and not justified in not allowing the deduction of Rs.5826598/- u/s 11(1)(a) as an application of income. The said deduction as claimed in the return, therefore, be kindly allowed

M/S BHOPAL DUGDH SANGH SAHAKARI MY.DAIRY PLANT, BHOPAL vs. DCIT -1 (1) ,BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani

TDS and therefore paid interest of Rs. 2,13,093/- u/s 201(1A) of the Act to the Income-tax Department. The assessee has debited this interest expenditure to P&L A/c and claimed as business