PERMALI WALLACE PVT. LTD,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

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

section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. This ground is dismissed.” We are in full agreement with the order of Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the assessee’s contention is rejected. Page 14 of 29 Permali Wallace P. Ltd., Bhopal vs. ITO, Bhopal, ITA Nos.550 to 552/Ind/2018 - A.Ys.2014-15 to 2016-17 (ii) Secondly, Ld. AR argued that

M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., UNIT SATNA CEMENT WORKS,SATNA vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeals

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

section 9 is academic, thus making the assessment bad in law B. Since matter was set aside by ITAT for examination of agency PE only whether Ld. Assessing Officer failed to bring anything on record to establish that such a dependent agency PE existed in light of articles 5 & 6 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (in short DTAAs). 3. Brief

M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., UNIT SATNA CEMENT WORKS,SATNA vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeals

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

section 9 is academic, thus making the assessment bad in law B. Since matter was set aside by ITAT for examination of agency PE only whether Ld. Assessing Officer failed to bring anything on record to establish that such a dependent agency PE existed in light of articles 5 & 6 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (in short DTAAs). 3. Brief

SHRI SHALIGRAM BAROD, ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

TDS at the time of Registry in the name of M/s Daksha Homes P. Ltd only. The same is claimed by M/s Daksha Homes P. Ltd in its Income Tax Return. Thus, on the excess amount of Rs. 32,55,000/- [ Rs. 1,30,20,000 - Rs. 97,65,000] , M/s Daksha Homes P. Ltd was liable to pay Income

SHRI VINOD KUMAR JAIN,RAISEN vs. THE ITO, VIDISHA

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Vinod Kumar Jain Ito R/O Mig 20 Patel Nagar Vs. Vidisha Mandideep Dist. Raisen (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aaqpj8582Q Appellant By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Shri V.J. Boricha Sr., Dr Date Of Hearing 14.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2020 O R D E R

227/- (Page 34 of P.B). Such observation is incorrect because he did not consider that gross receipts includes excavation charges recovered at Rs.1,66,365/- separately stated in profit and loss account. (Page 35 of P.B). ii) The bank account in the name of M/s. V.K. Transport maintained with State Bank of India do not match the credits with ledger

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.

227 held that" It is the duty of the functionaries under the IT act to -: 11 :- M.LODHA IMPEX,RATLAM. implement the provisions of the act in accordance with law. A return filed is bound to be processed by the Income tax authorities within the reasonable time. Section 119(2)(b) of the act cannot relieve the authorities from the obligation

S.R.DIGITAL AND BROADBAND PVT.LTD. ,INDORE vs. PCIT(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 S.R. Digital Tv & Pcit, Broadband Private Indore बनाम/ Limited, 335 Orbit Mall, A. B.Road, Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aavcs1165L Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, C.A. Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

TDS. Therefore, the issue of carry forward of losses was beyond the scope of scrutiny conducted by AO. Ld. AR submitted that this is a settled view taken by Indore Bench of ITAT in numerous orders that any issue which is not a part of limited scrutiny cannot form part of revision u/s 263. Therefore, the revision qua this issue

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. MARAL OVERSEAS LTD, KHARGONE

In the result, the “Impugned

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshideputy Commissioner Of Maral Overseas Ltd. बनाम/ Income Tax- 4(1) Maral Srovar, V & Po, Vs. Indore Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal (Pan: Aaccm0230B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satyajeet Goyal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026

227 ITR 172, relying on which the Learned CIT (A) has decided this issue against the assessee, are clearly distinguishable. The Hon'ble ITAT has categorically stated that the decision in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals has no applicability to this case. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Bench have been abstracted here under: - Page

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

227] to hold that the said Explanation cannot be said to have overridden the law as interpreted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, according to which the Ld. PCIT has to conduct an enquiry and verification to establish and show that the assessment order is unsustainable in law. The Tribunal has further held that the intention of the legislature

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

227] to hold that the said Explanation cannot be said to have overridden the law as interpreted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, according to which the Ld. PCIT has to conduct an enquiry and verification to establish and show that the assessment order is unsustainable in law. The Tribunal has further held that the intention of the legislature

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

227] to hold that the said Explanation cannot be said to have overridden the law as interpreted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, according to which the Ld. PCIT has to conduct an enquiry and verification to establish and show that the assessment order is unsustainable in law. The Tribunal has further held that the intention of the legislature

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

227 CTR 113 has pointed out a distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. If there is a lack of enquiry, then the assessment order can be branded as erroneous. The following observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court c worth to note:- "12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side

SOM DISTILLERIES PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(3), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

227 CTR 508 (CG), wherein it has been held that the expenditure incurred on account of diwali expenses cannot be treated as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession and is not allowable u/s.37(1) of the Act, which is squarely applicable to the case of the appellant, the donation

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL , BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

227 CTR 508 (CG), wherein it has been held that the expenditure incurred on account of diwali expenses cannot be treated as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession and is not allowable u/s.37(1) of the Act, which is squarely applicable to the case of the appellant, the donation

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

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

TDS has been deducted by various insurance companies on payments made by them. The disallowance was made for various reasons which, as mentioned in the assessment order are summarised here in below: Para Observations of the AO Submission of the assessee No 6.6.3(i) Details of faculty involved not During the course of assessment furnished proceedings no such information

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

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

TDS has been deducted by various insurance companies on payments made by them. The disallowance was made for various reasons which, as mentioned in the assessment order are summarised here in below: Para Observations of the AO Submission of the assessee No 6.6.3(i) Details of faculty involved not During the course of assessment furnished proceedings no such information

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

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

TDS has been deducted by various insurance companies on payments made by them. The disallowance was made for various reasons which, as mentioned in the assessment order are summarised here in below: Para Observations of the AO Submission of the assessee No 6.6.3(i) Details of faculty involved not During the course of assessment furnished proceedings no such information

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

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

TDS has been deducted by various insurance companies on payments made by them. The disallowance was made for various reasons which, as mentioned in the assessment order are summarised here in below: Para Observations of the AO Submission of the assessee No 6.6.3(i) Details of faculty involved not During the course of assessment furnished proceedings no such information