M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

section 14A of the Act. In support of this contention, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 22. Ld. D.R. could not controvert the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was no exempt income during the year under appeal, therefore, respectfully following the decision rendered

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PVT.LTD.,INDORE vs. THE JCIT, R-5 (PRESENT AO: DCIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

section 14A of the Act. In support of this contention, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 22. Ld. D.R. could not controvert the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was no exempt income during the year under appeal, therefore, respectfully following the decision rendered

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT- RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

section 14A of the Act. In support of this contention, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 22. Ld. D.R. could not controvert the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was no exempt income during the year under appeal, therefore, respectfully following the decision rendered

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

section 14A of the Act. In support of this contention, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 22. Ld. D.R. could not controvert the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was no exempt income during the year under appeal, therefore, respectfully following the decision rendered

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

section 14A of the Act. In support of this contention, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 22. Ld. D.R. could not controvert the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was no exempt income during the year under appeal, therefore, respectfully following the decision rendered

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

section 14A of the Act. In support of this contention, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 22. Ld. D.R. could not controvert the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was no exempt income during the year under appeal, therefore, respectfully following the decision rendered

THEACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KETI CONSTRUCTION LTD., INDORE

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit(Central)-2 M/S Keti Construction Ltd Indore Vastalya Chamebers, Sapna Sangeeta, 31/6, Sneh Nagar Vs. Main Road, Indore

14A shall be worked out even if the assessee does not have any exempt income as clarified by the CBDT as per circular No. 05 of 2014 dated 11.02.2014. This has been further reaffirmed by amendment in Finance Act 2022. Inserting explanation which is clarificatory in nature & hence has retrospective operation 2. Ground No.1 is regarding adhoc disallowance @10% made

KAILASHCHANDRA KHANDELWAL,SENDHWA vs. PR. CIT -2, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Kailash Khandelwal Pr. Cit-2, Prop. M/S. Vikash Krishi Indore बनाम/ Seva Kendra, Bus Stand, Vs. Sendhwa, Barwani (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Acmpk2991E Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Vijay Bansal, Nisha Lahoti, Ars Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

14A. 3. Notice u/s 263 was issued on 05.07.2018 – Para 3 – [PB 01] “As per the information available on records, it is noted that the assessee has debited interest paid of Rs. 2,45,31,692/- during the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2014-15 in respect of secured/unsecured loans of Rs. 25,73,26,860/- against this

ACIT 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SATISH JAIN, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed and the cross- objection of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

14A of the Income Tax Act in respect of interest expenses incurred for investment in subsidiaries and administrative expenses.” Further, the assessee has raised following grounds in its Cross-Objection: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-II erred in confirming the disallowance of interest expenses under section

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

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

14A holding that the assesse has not objected to the fact related to non-business investment made into shares of associate companies nor raised objection on the calculation of such disallowance. It is submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, disallowance already made by the appellant in its return of income at Rs.2

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P LTD., INDORE

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

14A holding that the assesse has not objected to the fact related to non-business investment made into shares of associate companies nor raised objection on the calculation of such disallowance. It is submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, disallowance already made by the appellant in its return of income at Rs.2

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

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

14A holding that the assesse has not objected to the fact related to non-business investment made into shares of associate companies nor raised objection on the calculation of such disallowance. It is submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, disallowance already made by the appellant in its return of income at Rs.2

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

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

14A holding that the assesse has not objected to the fact related to non-business investment made into shares of associate companies nor raised objection on the calculation of such disallowance. It is submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, disallowance already made by the appellant in its return of income at Rs.2

M/S. SANWARIA AGROILS LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

14A of the Act, were made even though the assessee has debited interest expenditure of Rs. 3.61 crores. Thus, there was prima-facie reason for reopening of assessment. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in reopening the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. We therefore, reject M/s. Sanwaria Agroil Ltd. / I.T.A. No. 620/Ind/2013 /A.Y

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

section 263 of the Act. In such matters, to remand the matter/issue to the Assessing Officer would imply and mean the Commissioner of Income tax has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed the Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question….” Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Madras High Court

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

section 263 of the Act. In such matters, to remand the matter/issue to the Assessing Officer would imply and mean the Commissioner of Income tax has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed the Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question….” Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Madras High Court

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

section 263 of the Act. In such matters, to remand the matter/issue to the Assessing Officer would imply and mean the Commissioner of Income tax has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed the Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question….” Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Madras High Court

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).

tds (Tax 1422 1422 Double taxation Deducted at source) and tcs (Tax Collected at Source) 3 I.TA No. 348/IND/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No Honourable packaging P. Ltd. vs. DCIT Interest on 120 Nil Payment related delay payment of to indirect tax. taxes Delay 892 Nil Normal payment charges Business Expenditures 2.3. The CPC not considered the above facts