M/S AGARWAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,BHOPAL vs. DYPTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

205 : (2013) 356 ITR 44 (Guj) concurred with :Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 13 CTR (SC) 186 : (1979) 120 ITR 921 (SC) and Securities & Exchange Board of India vs. Ajay Agarwal AIR 2010 sc 3466 distinguished. There is yet another reason for coming to the aforesaid conclusion. Take a scenario where an assessee following the project completion method

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

205 of the paper book. However, the filing or not filing of the certificates is not as important, because the complete list along with the addresses of the dononers was before the AO. The learned Assessing Officer observed that the copies of the letters issued by the donors were typed and that the names, the village and the amounts were

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

205 of the paper book. However, the filing or not filing of the certificates is not as important, because the complete list along with the addresses of the dononers was before the AO. The learned Assessing Officer observed that the copies of the letters issued by the donors were typed and that the names, the village and the amounts were

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

TDS on commission expenditure at Rs.3,12,513/- and disallowance of interest expenses at Rs.3,16,358/-. Income assessed at Rs.29,14,01,880/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging all the additions except for disallowance of commission expenses u/s 40A(1)(a) of the Act and partly succeeded. 31. Now the assessee is in appeal before

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

TDS on commission expenditure at Rs.3,12,513/- and disallowance of interest expenses at Rs.3,16,358/-. Income assessed at Rs.29,14,01,880/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging all the additions except for disallowance of commission expenses u/s 40A(1)(a) of the Act and partly succeeded. 31. Now the assessee is in appeal before

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

TDS on commission expenditure at Rs.3,12,513/- and disallowance of interest expenses at Rs.3,16,358/-. Income assessed at Rs.29,14,01,880/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging all the additions except for disallowance of commission expenses u/s 40A(1)(a) of the Act and partly succeeded. 31. Now the assessee is in appeal before

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

TDS on commission expenditure at Rs.3,12,513/- and disallowance of interest expenses at Rs.3,16,358/-. Income assessed at Rs.29,14,01,880/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging all the additions except for disallowance of commission expenses u/s 40A(1)(a) of the Act and partly succeeded. 31. Now the assessee is in appeal before