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(2

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

143 (2)/ 142 (1) of the Act were issued on 13/08/2008. The assessment was finalised on 29.12.2009 upon making the additions on account of dividend income under Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A to the tune of Rs.8,83,383/- and personal expenses of Rs.6,18,746/-. Thus, the total income was assessed at Rs 40,15,16,900/-, upon making addition

M/S. M. LODHA IMPEX,RATLAM vs. THE ITO-1, RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 185/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S.M.Lodha Impex, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 117-118, Manak Chowk, Ward 1, Ratlam. Ratlam.

TDS of Rs.175815/- was filed on 09-04-2001.The assesse also filed rectification u/s 154 on 3/11/2004. Then assesse filed application u/s 119(1)(b)(c) on 21/12/2004 before CIT, Ujjain. The CIT, Ujjain passed order u/s 119(2)(b) on 17/01/2008. The assessee had received first notice U/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 16-05-2008. 2.Notice

ADIM JATI SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI MYDT JOBAT,ALIRAJPUR vs. FACELESS ASSESSMENT OFFICER, ALIRAJPUR

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti National Faceless बनाम/ Mydt., Assessment Centre Vs. 01, Jobat, Jobat, Delhi Alirajpur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaala0577E Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

143(3) r.w.s. 147/263 of the Act, disallowing the interest income earned by the assessee by way of FD investment in other Co-op. Society, i.e. Gujarat State Co-op. Bank Ltd. (GSCB) and the rental income from HUDCO and SHARK Systems, which were claimed by the assessee u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Page 8 of 34 Adim

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

143 79[[except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel 80[***] 81[or an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA]]] or section 144, to the income assessed, or to the amount of tax determined, or to the amount of loss computed, or to the status under which he is assessed

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

143 79[[except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel 80[***] 81[or an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA]]] or section 144, to the income assessed, or to the amount of tax determined, or to the amount of loss computed, or to the status under which he is assessed

M/S. ARIHANT CHERITABLE TRUST,INDORE vs. THE ITO (TDS)-1, INDORE

In the result, we find no force in the ground of the Revenue, hence dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

TDS, Coimbatore [I.T.A. No. 2710/Mum/2015] vide order dated 01-03-2018 has held that: [Page No. 62-67] “5………………..The issue to be decided is as to whether the work carried out by the assessee would fall in the category of technical services as envisaged by the provisions of section 9 of the Act. Technical services mean any consideration paid

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

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold and silver

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

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold and silver

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

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold and silver

SUCH MEDIA PUBLICATION P LTD ,CIT (A) NFAC DELHI vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

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

2. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) to challenge the orders made by the Assessing Officer, CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT, disallowing an adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) read with section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act in respect of delayed remittance of employees' contributions to Employee State

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

143(2) dated 97 08/09/2014 10. 16/03/2015 Submission of the information called for vide notice u/s 98-123 142(1)including the following: a.) Confirmation from Sri Aurobindo Institute of Management Science & Technology & Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences that approval u/s 80G is not cancelled. b.) Sources of Undisclosed Income surrendered during the survey proceedings. c.) Other documents

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

143(2) dated 97 08/09/2014 10. 16/03/2015 Submission of the information called for vide notice u/s 98-123 142(1)including the following: a.) Confirmation from Sri Aurobindo Institute of Management Science & Technology & Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences that approval u/s 80G is not cancelled. b.) Sources of Undisclosed Income surrendered during the survey proceedings. c.) Other documents

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

143(2) dated 97 08/09/2014 10. 16/03/2015 Submission of the information called for vide notice u/s 98-123 142(1)including the following: a.) Confirmation from Sri Aurobindo Institute of Management Science & Technology & Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences that approval u/s 80G is not cancelled. b.) Sources of Undisclosed Income surrendered during the survey proceedings. c.) Other documents

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

SHRI JAGDISH KUMAR GULIA,BHOPAL vs. THRE ASSTT.DIRECTORE OF INCOME TAX ,CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

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

2. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) to challenge the orders made by the Assessing Officer, CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT, disallowing an adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) read with section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act in respect of delayed remittance of employees' contributions to Employee State

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

2. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) to challenge the orders made by the Assessing Officer, CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT, disallowing an adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) read with section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act in respect of delayed remittance of employees' contributions to Employee State

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