ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

D E R Per Bench: Feeling aggrieved by undermentioned appeal-orders passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) [“CIT(A)”], the assessee and revenue both have filed the captioned cross-appeals for different assessment-years [“AY”], which in turn arise out of respective assessment-orders passed by Page 1 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

D E R Per Bench: Feeling aggrieved by undermentioned appeal-orders passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) [“CIT(A)”], the assessee and revenue both have filed the captioned cross-appeals for different assessment-years [“AY”], which in turn arise out of respective assessment-orders passed by Page 1 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

D E R Per Bench: Feeling aggrieved by undermentioned appeal-orders passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) [“CIT(A)”], the assessee and revenue both have filed the captioned cross-appeals for different assessment-years [“AY”], which in turn arise out of respective assessment-orders passed by Page 1 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

D E R Per Bench: Feeling aggrieved by undermentioned appeal-orders passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) [“CIT(A)”], the assessee and revenue both have filed the captioned cross-appeals for different assessment-years [“AY”], which in turn arise out of respective assessment-orders passed by Page 1 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

D E R Per Bench: Feeling aggrieved by undermentioned appeal-orders passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) [“CIT(A)”], the assessee and revenue both have filed the captioned cross-appeals for different assessment-years [“AY”], which in turn arise out of respective assessment-orders passed by Page 1 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

D E R Per Bench: Feeling aggrieved by undermentioned appeal-orders passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) [“CIT(A)”], the assessee and revenue both have filed the captioned cross-appeals for different assessment-years [“AY”], which in turn arise out of respective assessment-orders passed by Page 1 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

D E R Per Bench: Feeling aggrieved by undermentioned appeal-orders passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) [“CIT(A)”], the assessee and revenue both have filed the captioned cross-appeals for different assessment-years [“AY”], which in turn arise out of respective assessment-orders passed by Page 1 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

d) Existence of conditions stipulated in section Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. 271(1)(c) is a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271. (e) The existence of such conditions should be discernible from the assessment order or the order of the appellate authority or the revisional authority. (f) Even if there

M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

d) Existence of conditions stipulated in section Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. 271(1)(c) is a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271. (e) The existence of such conditions should be discernible from the assessment order or the order of the appellate authority or the revisional authority. (f) Even if there

M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

d) Existence of conditions stipulated in section Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. 271(1)(c) is a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271. (e) The existence of such conditions should be discernible from the assessment order or the order of the appellate authority or the revisional authority. (f) Even if there

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

d) Section 200A speaks about the processing of TDS return/statements and thus the provisions starts only after the filing of such TDS returns/statements, whether in time or delayed, whereas section 234E seeks to levy the fees for the period of delay in filing such TDS returns and statements. Therefore, it may be seen that the charging provisions of section 234E

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

d) Section 200A speaks about the processing of TDS return/statements and thus the provisions starts only after the filing of such TDS returns/statements, whether in time or delayed, whereas section 234E seeks to levy the fees for the period of delay in filing such TDS returns and statements. Therefore, it may be seen that the charging provisions of section 234E

M/S PLATINUM HORAZINE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

D E R PER O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-II, Indore [hereinafter referred to as the CIT (A)] dated 31.12.2015. This appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2009-10. Which arose out of the penalty order passed M/s. Platinum Horazine Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

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

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in business of providing credit facilities to its members. For AY 2020-21, the assessee filed return declaring total income of Rs. 40/-. In the return of income so filed, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 22,95,983/- u/s 80P(2)(d

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

D E R Per Bench: The captioned three appeals are filed by assessee assailing two separate appeal-orders, one for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2012-13 and other for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15, both dated 29.12.2023 and passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arise out of respective penalty-orders dated

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

D E R Per Bench: The captioned three appeals are filed by assessee assailing two separate appeal-orders, one for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2012-13 and other for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15, both dated 29.12.2023 and passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arise out of respective penalty-orders dated

AATMA PRAKASH MENTAL HEALTH FOUNDATION,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaatma Prakash Mental Cit (Exemption), Health Foundation, Bhopal बनाम/ 738, Nehru Nagar, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aaoca9170A Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta & Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Bhopal [“CIT(E)”] by which the assessee’s application for grant of final approval u/s 80G(5) of Income-tax Act, 1961 has been rejected and the provisional approval u/s 80G(5) granted earlier

M/S NEO SACK LTD vs. THE ACIT 4(2),

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing No

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

D E R PER BENCH The assessee has filed the appeals for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004, whereas the revenue has filed the appeals for the assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 & 2003-04 and the assessee hasalso filed the cross objections arising out of revenue’s appeal nos. 682 & 683/Ind/2003 for the assessment