THE ACIT, -2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assesse is disposed off in terms of

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

establish disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IB(10). Further, we find that the claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) was already a subject matter of Page 15 of 40 ACIT-2(1), Bhopal Vs. M/s D.K. Construction ITA No.59, 159 & 436/Ind/2015 – AY 2009-10 to 2011-12 regular assessments in preceding years.In the A.Y. 2004-05 to 2007-08 the deduction

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

permanent establishment of such person) who is, or has been, or is proposed to be, engaged in any activity, relating to the production, storage, supply, distribution, acquisition or control of articles or goods, or know-how, patents, copyrights, trade-marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, or any data, documentation, drawing or specification relating

ACIT 2 (1), INDORE vs. M/S JILA INDUSTRIES LTD, DHAR

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-2(1), Indore M/S. Jiji Industries Ltd., (Formerly Known As बनाम/ Krishna Profiles Pvt. Vs. Ltd.), Plot No. 316, Sejwaya, Billod, Dhar (Mp) (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan - Aacck 1383 M Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh, Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.12.2022

permanent establishment in India and payment was not made on behalf of assessee, without any verification of the claim by any enquiry or remand report. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 84,99,600/- on account of increase in share capital relying on the submission

CHIRAYU CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,BHOPAL vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradchirayu Charitable Pcit (Central), Foundation,Bhopal Indore Bhopal Highway, Bhaisakhedi, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aaaac3656P Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Advocate, Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar, Advs Date Of Hearing 05.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement .02.2021 O R D E R Per Manish Borad, Am.

Permanent Account No. This confirmation letter forms part of the seized material along with the appeal of the assessee to the said donor to make generous donation. It is also apparent from the assessment order that notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were issued to all the donors mentioned in the Show Cause Notice including Udhodas Mundra Seva Sansthan

RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Rajendra Kumar Dcit/Acit-2(1), Gupta, Bhopal B-72, Mansarovar, बनाम/ Shahpura, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaypg6045M Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2024

permanent structure on it. Hence in my considered opinion the action of the AO with regard to disallowance of standard deduction on vacant plot of land is correct in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the disallowance of Rs. 1,80,000/- is hereby confirmed. Therefore, this ground of appeal is dismissed.” 14. Thus, both of the lower-authorities have made

ITO 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S AMKAY COLONISERS & BUILDERS P LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ito 1(1) M/S. Amkay Colonisers & Bhopal Builders Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 16, Amar Stambh, Z-1, M.P. Nagar Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue ) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaeca 6272 F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.12.2022

disallowance while framing assessment. Upholding the same, we dismiss the Ground No. 1. Page 3 of 16 M/s. Amkay Colonisers and Builders Pvt. ltd. Assessment year 2013-14 Ground No. 2: 7. This ground relates to the addition of Rs. 3,75,00,000/- made by AO on account of bogus cash credit u/s 68. 8. During assessment-proceeding

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

permanent employees of assessee? Lastly, Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has judiciously considered the factual position of assessee and deleted the disallowance, his order is a proper order and no interference is required. 11. Ld. AR also pointed out that all payment-vouchers considered by CIT(A) were part of books of accounts and were available before

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

permanent employees of assessee? Lastly, Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has judiciously considered the factual position of assessee and deleted the disallowance, his order is a proper order and no interference is required. 11. Ld. AR also pointed out that all payment-vouchers considered by CIT(A) were part of books of accounts and were available before

MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. ACIT- (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

permanent employees of assessee? Lastly, Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has judiciously considered the factual position of assessee and deleted the disallowance, his order is a proper order and no interference is required. 11. Ld. AR also pointed out that all payment-vouchers considered by CIT(A) were part of books of accounts and were available before

THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available on record. We find that the supply of generators to its customers as per terms of contract which is specifically provided for consolidated consideration is to be charged consisting of generators

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available on record. We find that the supply of generators to its customers as per terms of contract which is specifically provided for consolidated consideration is to be charged consisting of generators

M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available on record. We find that the supply of generators to its customers as per terms of contract which is specifically provided for consolidated consideration is to be charged consisting of generators

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available on record. We find that the supply of generators to its customers as per terms of contract which is specifically provided for consolidated consideration is to be charged consisting of generators

JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,KHARGONE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed”

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2022-23 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Cpc / Nfac Bank Maryadit, बनाम/ 33,Khandwa Road, Vs. Khargone (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaatj0529K Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 01.07.2024

establishments covered under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 ("EPF Act") are distressed and not able to function properly. 6. Moreover In the cases of McLeod Russel India Limited v RPFC1(2014) 15 SCC 263 and Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v Management of RSL Textiles (CA 96-97 of 2017) which has underlined the broad contours

M/S S.S. CROP CARE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE JCIT RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the revenue are

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

permanent labour, the assessee company is paying ESIC, PF, etc. whereas for casual labour, no such statutory payments were made and the payments are not in proportion to monthly production. The learned DR brought to our notice that except muster roll, no other ledger or vouchers are maintained for cash payments and the signatures of casual 8 SS Crop Care

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

established wholly for religious purposes; (b) any trust or institution created or established wholly for religious and charitable purposes other than any anonymous donation made with a specific direction that such donation is for any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution run by such trust or institution. (3) For the purposes of this section

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

established wholly for religious purposes; (b) any trust or institution created or established wholly for religious and charitable purposes other than any anonymous donation made with a specific direction that such donation is for any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution run by such trust or institution. (3) For the purposes of this section

SHRI MADANLAL GABBAJI BANJARA,NEEMUCH vs. THE ITO, NEEMUCH

In the result both the appeals for Assessment Years vide

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

disallowance of set off loss of Rs. 57,080/- was made. Income assessed at Rs.4,76,43,600/-. 6. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. A.O assessee went for appeal before Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2007-08 and 2008-09 and partly succeeded for Assessment Year 2007-08 but failed to succeed for Assessment Year