RNG CONSTRUCTION CO,INDRA NAGAR vs. DCIT-CPC, CPC-BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshirng Construction Co. Dcit-Cpc बनाम/ 14, Sector-A, Vs. Indira Nagar, Mandideep (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqfr9084B Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025

TDS as well as duty draw back. The DCIT, CPC-Bangalore, subsequent to the issue of notice u/s 143(2), has processed the return of income and has issued intimation u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act dated 25.12.2019. The issue for adjudication is whether once the scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) has commenced vide notice u/s 143

M/S DAULATARAM ENGINEERING SERVICES P.LTD,MANDIDEEP vs. THE ADIT/CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 143(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 18.05.2020 by which a sum of Rs.1,85,76,482/- was disallowed on account of assessee's contribution under the ESI and PF and the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs.1,85,76,482/- and the tax payable on this income was computed at Rs.55

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

143(3) by Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-2, Indore for different years including AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 with which are concerned in these three appeals. During search-proceedings, various incriminating documents in the form of hard copies as well as soft documents were found and seized from factory premise of Company. During post-search enquiries, data

HONOURABLE PACKAGING P LTD ,DHAR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of The Income Tax Return & Can It Be Disallowed In The 143(1).

section 2 I.TA No. 348/IND/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No Honourable packaging P. Ltd. vs. DCIT 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2017-18. 2. The solitary issue involved in this appeal is late payment of PF and ESIC contribution by the assessee but deposited before

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

143(1) is unjustified and unlawful and therefore the credit of TCS of Rs. 8226254 be kindly allowed. Page 1 of 24 ITA No.124/Ind/2023 & ITANo.35/Ind/2023 Million Trader Bhopal Page 2 of 24 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred and not justified in his findings that

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

143(1) is unjustified and unlawful and therefore the credit of TCS of Rs. 8226254 be kindly allowed. Page 1 of 24 ITA No.124/Ind/2023 & ITANo.35/Ind/2023 Million Trader Bhopal Page 2 of 24 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred and not justified in his findings that

HEMLATA PATEL,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DEWAS

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purpose

TDS in UK on\nthe pension income. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of\nthe Act in which credit of foreign tax claimed u/s 90/90A is\ndisallowed & demand is raised after nullifying the refund\nclaimed in ROI. It is required to be noted that in Annexure\nFSI (As provided by Taxpayer) country code is USA, income\nfrom outside India

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

143(3) by Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-2, Indore for different years including AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 with which are concerned in these three appeals. During search-proceedings, various incriminating documents in the form of hard copies as well as soft documents were found and seized from factory premise of Company. During post-search enquiries, data

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

143(3) by Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-2, Indore for different years including AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 with which are concerned in these three appeals. During search-proceedings, various incriminating documents in the form of hard copies as well as soft documents were found and seized from factory premise of Company. During post-search enquiries, data

THE DCIT, 2(1), 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

1 kgm Silver bar was sold with a profit in the range of Rs. 500'/- to Rs 800/- during the reference year. In view of the above, gross profit earned on sale of per Silver bar is determined at Rs. 800/- In this regard the reply given for Gross Profit estimation in case of Gold KG Bars is equally applicable

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

1 kgm Silver bar was sold with a profit in the range of Rs. 500'/- to Rs 800/- during the reference year. In view of the above, gross profit earned on sale of per Silver bar is determined at Rs. 800/- In this regard the reply given for Gross Profit estimation in case of Gold KG Bars is equally applicable

THE DCIT, 2(1), 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

1 kgm Silver bar was sold with a profit in the range of Rs. 500'/- to Rs 800/- during the reference year. In view of the above, gross profit earned on sale of per Silver bar is determined at Rs. 800/- In this regard the reply given for Gross Profit estimation in case of Gold KG Bars is equally applicable

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

143(3) r.w. section 147 within a period of 10 days from the date of disposing of the objections of the assessee against the notice u/ 148 which is contrary to the procedure to be followed by the AO as directed by the Hon’ble High Court and consequently the impugned order is liable to be set aside. We order

CHARCHIT GARG,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS, advance tax and self- assessment tax. 4. The return of income was processed by the CPC under section 143(1

RAISEN MARKETING P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ADIT CPC , BGHOPAL

In the result, the present appeal is allowed in so far as it relates\nto adjudication of Ground No

sections": [ "143(1)", "234B", "234C", "32(1)(ii)", "32(1)(iia)", "32(1)(i)", "115JB", "206CA", "194A", "14A" ], "issues": "Whether the addition made by the AO in the intimation u/s 143(1) was a double addition, and whether the denial of credit for TCS and TDS

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

Section Sanjay Lunawat ITA No.396/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.32/Ind/2018 143(3) 143(3) 143(1) 143(3) 2 Agricultural income 3,82,000 8,14,000 5,017,400 9,00,000 shown Agricultural income 3 3,82,000 NIL 5,01,400 8,00,000 accepted 4 Agricultural income NIL 8,14,000 NIL 1,00,000 not accepted

DEEPAK PAREKH,USA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

section 5A/other person as per rule 37BA(2)]\" but to no avail, as claim of TDS of Rs.14,59,120/- relating to spouse was still denied. (copy of relevant page of ITR 2 at page 9 of the Paper Book)\n10. The Assessing Officer (CPC) Bangalore passed another intimation u/s 143(1

JAGDISH SOLANKI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER JHABUA, JHABUA

Appeal is dismissed

143(2) of the Act is illegal, wrong and bad-in-law.\n8. The contentions raised by assessee/Ld. AR are similar/identical to various contentions raised in first-appeal as noted by CIT(A) in Para 5.2 of impugned order passed by CIT(A) [re-produced above]. The Ld. AR has also referred certain judicial rulings wherein the conclusions upholding these