M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1) RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

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

17 of 66 4) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance of entire expenses as claimed by the assessee of Rs 4,729/-without properly appreciating the facts of the case and submission made before him. 5) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

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

17 of 66 4) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance of entire expenses as claimed by the assessee of Rs 4,729/-without properly appreciating the facts of the case and submission made before him. 5) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

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

17 of 66 4) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance of entire expenses as claimed by the assessee of Rs 4,729/-without properly appreciating the facts of the case and submission made before him. 5) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

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

17 of 66 4) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance of entire expenses as claimed by the assessee of Rs 4,729/-without properly appreciating the facts of the case and submission made before him. 5) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

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

17 of 66 4) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance of entire expenses as claimed by the assessee of Rs 4,729/-without properly appreciating the facts of the case and submission made before him. 5) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

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

D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM: The above captioned three appeals filed by the revenue for Assessment Year 2012-13 to 2014-15, Cross Appeal by the assessee for 2012-13 and Cross Objections by the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14 to 2014-15 are directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Indore

M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

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

D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM: The above captioned three appeals filed by the revenue for Assessment Year 2012-13 to 2014-15, Cross Appeal by the assessee for 2012-13 and Cross Objections by the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14 to 2014-15 are directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Indore

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

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

D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM: The above captioned three appeals filed by the revenue for Assessment Year 2012-13 to 2014-15, Cross Appeal by the assessee for 2012-13 and Cross Objections by the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14 to 2014-15 are directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Indore

DCIT !(1) INDORE, INDORE vs. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

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

D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM: The above captioned three appeals filed by the revenue for Assessment Year 2012-13 to 2014-15, Cross Appeal by the assessee for 2012-13 and Cross Objections by the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14 to 2014-15 are directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Indore

PRASAM RAKESH CHOUDHARY,GIRNAR SOCIETY, BAPURAO GALLI, ITWARI, NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 19.02.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of penalty-order dated 28.02.2020 passed by learned DCIT/ACIT- 1(1), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for assessment-year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHOPOAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RASHTRIYA TAKNIKI SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN EVAM ANUNSANDHAN SANSTHAN, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 19.02.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of penalty-order dated 28.02.2020 passed by learned DCIT/ACIT- 1(1), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for assessment-year

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE CIT (TDS), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

D E R Per B.M. Biyani, AM: These are the two appeals filed by assessee for Financial Year 2009-10 relevant to Assessment-Year 2010-11. The first appeal being ITA No. Page 1 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) 415/Ind/2014 is directed against revision-order dated

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

D E R Per B.M. Biyani, AM: These are the two appeals filed by assessee for Financial Year 2009-10 relevant to Assessment-Year 2010-11. The first appeal being ITA No. Page 1 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) 415/Ind/2014 is directed against revision-order dated

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

D E R Per Bench: The captioned three appeals have been filed by assessee against three separate appeal-orders all dated 31.10.2014 and passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Indore [“CIT(A)”] in Appeal Nos. IT- 16/13-14/187, IT-173/13-14/188 and IT-241/13-14/189, which in turn arise of respective orders dated 15.03.3013, 28.03.2013 and 30.07.2013 passed

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

D E R Per Bench: The captioned three appeals have been filed by assessee against three separate appeal-orders all dated 31.10.2014 and passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Indore [“CIT(A)”] in Appeal Nos. IT- 16/13-14/187, IT-173/13-14/188 and IT-241/13-14/189, which in turn arise of respective orders dated 15.03.3013, 28.03.2013 and 30.07.2013 passed

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

D E R Per Bench: The captioned three appeals have been filed by assessee against three separate appeal-orders all dated 31.10.2014 and passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Indore [“CIT(A)”] in Appeal Nos. IT- 16/13-14/187, IT-173/13-14/188 and IT-241/13-14/189, which in turn arise of respective orders dated 15.03.3013, 28.03.2013 and 30.07.2013 passed

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

section 12AA(3) & 12AA(4) of the Act only on the basis of invoking provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act for cancelling the registration u/s 12AA of the Act which in our view was not correct since only the amount of benefit of exemption can be a subject matter but continuing of registration u/s 12AA

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

section 12AA(3) & 12AA(4) of the Act only on the basis of invoking provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act for cancelling the registration u/s 12AA of the Act which in our view was not correct since only the amount of benefit of exemption can be a subject matter but continuing of registration u/s 12AA