M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

DANISH HEALTH CARE P LTD ,UJJAIN vs. PR CIT -1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Danish Health Care Pr. Cit-1, Private Limited, Indore बनाम/ 76/27, Maxi Road, Industrial Area, Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaecd5554F Assessee By Ms.Ruchira Negi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2023

2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va). Ld. AR fairly agreed that the assessee has not deposited employees’ contribution before due dates and in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), the same is disallowable. Faced with this situation, we agree that the PCIT has rightly invoked

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS on several other payments made during the year and consequently, no disallowance was called for under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 9.1 We further find that the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of the assessee itself for the A.Y. 2009-10 vide order dated 10.11.2014 approved the net profit rate of 5% in the business carried

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS on several other payments made during the year and consequently, no disallowance was called for under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 9.1 We further find that the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of the assessee itself for the A.Y. 2009-10 vide order dated 10.11.2014 approved the net profit rate of 5% in the business carried

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS on several other payments made during the year and consequently, no disallowance was called for under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 9.1 We further find that the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of the assessee itself for the A.Y. 2009-10 vide order dated 10.11.2014 approved the net profit rate of 5% in the business carried

SHRI MUSTAK KHAN,INDORE vs. THE ITO 2(3), INDORE

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Years 2010-11 Shri Mushtak Khan, Ito 2(3), 29 Kadav Ghat, Vs. Indore Near Py Road, Indore (Assessee) (Respondent ) Pan No.Actpk0068R Revenue By Shri K.G. Goel, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Niranjan Purandare, C.A Date Of Hearing 09.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 16.04.2019 O R D E R

2) & 142(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings while examining the financial statements Learned Assessing Officer (in short Ld. A.O) observed that the assessee has claimed expenditure for commission payment of Rs.10,10,287/- which was claimed by the assessee as a genuine expenditure paid to registry consultants and clients in order to increase the sale

BALAJI PHOSPHATES LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCITACIT 1(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibalaji Phosphates Limited, Dcitacit 1(1), 305, Utsav Avenue, Indore Vs. 12/5 Ushaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadcb5654R Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 O R D E R

section 154 of the Act to such apparent mistake but disposal of same was not reflected upto date of filing of first appeal due to started recovery proceeding against tax levied. Thus dismissal of appeal is illegal and bad in law. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the company the order of AddI CIT/JCIT(A) refuse to admit

DECORE EXXOILS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT &TP), BHOPAL

2 (Para 5) to this CAR [PB 119] u. Clause 9.2 – Pilot’s proficiency check (PPC): [PB 120] v. Clause 9.2.3 – The period of validity of a PPC shall be six months……[PB 120] w. Clause 9.3 – Instrument rating (IR) check: [PB 120] 44 Decore Exxoils P. Ltd. /ITANos.196 & 197/Ind/2018 x. Clause 9.3.3 – The period of validity of an instrument

DECORE EXXOILS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT &TP), BHOPAL

2 (Para 5) to this CAR [PB 119] u. Clause 9.2 – Pilot’s proficiency check (PPC): [PB 120] v. Clause 9.2.3 – The period of validity of a PPC shall be six months……[PB 120] w. Clause 9.3 – Instrument rating (IR) check: [PB 120] 44 Decore Exxoils P. Ltd. /ITANos.196 & 197/Ind/2018 x. Clause 9.3.3 – The period of validity of an instrument

THE DCIT,1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. RITSPIN SYNTHETICS LTD., PITHAMPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms indicated above, and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not sec. 115BBE of the Act by the AO even when the only source of income of assessee was from its business only. 3. That on the facts of the case and as per law, the CIT(A) erred

M/S. N.T.THOMAS MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL AND DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 1(2), INDORE

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena1.आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 139/Ind/2015 2. I.T.A. No. 150/Ind/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2011-12

164 ITR 439 (Raj.) and committed no error in holding this issue in favour of the assessee.” 8. We are of the view that excess expenditure incurred for charitable purposes in the year is liable to be adjusted against the income of the succeeding year which computing taxable income of the succeeding year. Since, the provision of Section

THE ITO, (EXEMPTION), INDORE vs. M/S. N.T.THOMAS MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL & DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena1.आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 139/Ind/2015 2. I.T.A. No. 150/Ind/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2011-12

164 ITR 439 (Raj.) and committed no error in holding this issue in favour of the assessee.” 8. We are of the view that excess expenditure incurred for charitable purposes in the year is liable to be adjusted against the income of the succeeding year which computing taxable income of the succeeding year. Since, the provision of Section

DY. CIT -1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

164 of the paper book PB-B·I. Both the companies are also assessed by their respective jurisdictional AOs, wherein assessments have also been carried out, the assessment proceedings were attended and assessment orders were passed. The copies of various have also been placed on record. All these undisputed facts cumulatively establish the identity of both these companies which

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AVILABLE FINANCE LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

164 of the paper book PB-B·I. Both the companies are also assessed by their respective jurisdictional AOs, wherein assessments have also been carried out, the assessment proceedings were attended and assessment orders were passed. The copies of various have also been placed on record. All these undisputed facts cumulatively establish the identity of both these companies which

M/S AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD.,INDORE vs. THEDCIT 1(1) , INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

164 of the paper book PB-B·I. Both the companies are also assessed by their respective jurisdictional AOs, wherein assessments have also been carried out, the assessment proceedings were attended and assessment orders were passed. The copies of various have also been placed on record. All these undisputed facts cumulatively establish the identity of both these companies which

THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S MOENUS TEXTILE PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10

164 pages. 7. We have heard rival contentions carefully perused the records placed before us. Apropos to Ground no.1 raised by the revenue, we find that it relates to the addition of Rs.1,31,50,000/- made by the ld. AO u/s Moenus Textile P. Ltd. 68 of the Act for the unexplained share application money received from following three