MAKSON HEALH CARE P LTD,MANDIDEEP vs. THE DCIT/ACIT1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals filed by the assesse in ITANo

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

condoned the delay in filing the present appeal. Therefore, this ground becomes infructuous. 6. Ground No.6 is regarding disallowance of interest made on account of interest free advances given by the assessee to sister concern. Ld. Sr. counsel has submitted that the assessee has given total loan and advance of Rs.7,76,09,009/- whereas the assessee

MAKSON HEALTH CARE P LTD,MANDIDEEP vs. THE DCIT/ACCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals filed by the assesse in ITANo

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

condoned the delay in filing the present appeal. Therefore, this ground becomes infructuous. 6. Ground No.6 is regarding disallowance of interest made on account of interest free advances given by the assessee to sister concern. Ld. Sr. counsel has submitted that the assessee has given total loan and advance of Rs.7,76,09,009/- whereas the assessee

PRAVEEN MADHUARRAO SATWASKER,INDORE vs. THE ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniita No.339 & 340/Ind/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Praveen Madhukarrao V. The Deputy Satwaskar Commissioner Of Income 1159, Sudama Nagar Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. Indore Pan-Ajsps7468M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 .04.2023

43B of the Act by inserting Explanation 5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will

PRAVEEN MADHUARRAO SATWASKER,INDORE vs. THE ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniita No.339 & 340/Ind/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Praveen Madhukarrao V. The Deputy Satwaskar Commissioner Of Income 1159, Sudama Nagar Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. Indore Pan-Ajsps7468M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 .04.2023

43B of the Act by inserting Explanation 5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will

M/S MODERN LABORATARIES PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Modern Laboratories V. The Deputy 45-D2, Sanwer Road, Commissioner Of Income Indore Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. Pan-Aacfm 5920 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.04.2023

43B of the Act by inserting Explanation 5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will

M/S. DIASPARK INFOTECH PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE NFAC ,NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & T.R. Senthil Kumar

condoning the delay, despite having sufficient reasons. It is submitted that immediately on receipt of order under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed a rectification application under section 154, but the same was pending before the CPC. As there was no fruitful results received from the CPC, the assessee filed statutory first appeal with delay

GOURAV BHARGAVA,BHOPAL vs. ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

condoned the delay, citing the 'sufficient cause' principle and the need for substantial justice. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of an addition of Rs.86,682/- relating to other incomes. Ground No. 5 regarding a bonus expenditure disallowance was remanded to the AO for verification.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(1)", "253(5)", "43B

M/S LAURELS SCHOOL AND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTION P.LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Laurels School & V. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. Management Institutions Pvt. Ltd. 7, Press Complex, A.B. Road, Behind Dainik Bhaskar Press, Indore. Pan-Aaacl4970D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Anil Kumar Garg & Arpit Gaur, Ca Respondent By: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.04.2023

condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” 4. The limitation for filing the appeal in the present case was expired in the month of February, 2022 and the assessee has filed the present appeal on 25th May, 2022 but within the period of 90 as provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court being extension of limitation for the cases where

JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MYDT,SEHORE, MP vs. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi / Bank Mydt, Acit-3(1), Bhopal बनाम/ Sehore, M.P. Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaalj0022F Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026

delay in present appeal is condoned. 3. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee is a co-operative bank. For AY 2014-15, the assessee filed its return of income on 28.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 86,90,950/- and subsequently filed a revised return on 15.12.2014 declaring a total income

M/S. GREATER KAILASH HOSPITAL (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, being not maintainable is

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14

section 32 of the Act of Rs. 2,62,09,454/- 4. The appellant reserves its right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by it” Application of the assessee for condonation of delay in the Tribunal and for admission of new/additional grounds of appeal dated 18.11.2022: 3. The ld. Representative of the assessee

SANTOSH CHATURVEDI,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purpose

condoned the delay, and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "253", "250", "249(2)", "246A", "143(1)", "36(1)(va)", "43B

RAHUL SHARMA ,INDORE vs. DCIT /CPC , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condoned. 3. The addition of Rs. 5,36,494/- on account of delayed payment to employees’ contribution to Provident Fund ( PF) / Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) is under challenge before us. 4. The addition has been made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act which has been wrongly held by the authorities below as contended by the assessee since

SANTOSH CHATURVEDI,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purpose

condoned the delay upon payment of cost, and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A).", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "253", "250", "246A", "249(2)", "143(1)", "36(1)(va)", "43B

SHRI ASHOK RAO THORAT,PITHAMPUR DHAR vs. ADIT, CPC JURISDICTION WARD 1(4), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condone the delay. 3. The additions have been made in both appeals under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act which have been wrongly held by the authorities below as contended by the assessee since the same are without appreciating the fact that the assessee has deposited the same to the respective funds within the time limit permitted under Section

SHRI ASHOK RAO THORAT,PITHAMPUR DHAR vs. ADIT, CPC JURISDICTION WARD 1(4), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condone the delay. 3. The additions have been made in both appeals under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act which have been wrongly held by the authorities below as contended by the assessee since the same are without appreciating the fact that the assessee has deposited the same to the respective funds within the time limit permitted under Section

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY SHUKLA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Sanjay Shukla, Acit Central Circle 2, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit Central Circle 2, Shri Sanjay Shukla, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03..2022 आदेश / O R D E R

condone the delay in filing the departmental appeal and admit the same for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of transportation contractor, handling of steel materials. Return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 filed on 30.09.2013 declaring income of Rs.1

SHRI SANJAY SHUKLA ,INDORE vs. ACIT,CENTRAL-CIRLE-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Sanjay Shukla, Acit Central Circle 2, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit Central Circle 2, Shri Sanjay Shukla, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03..2022 आदेश / O R D E R

condone the delay in filing the departmental appeal and admit the same for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of transportation contractor, handling of steel materials. Return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 filed on 30.09.2013 declaring income of Rs.1

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

condoned and appeal is proceeded for hearing. 4. The grounds raised by parties are as under: Assessee’s ITA No. 11/Ind/2019 for AY 2012-13: Page 2 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance