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

2: 10. This ground relates to the deduction of depreciation on plant and machinery. The assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 3,89,37,375/-; the AO disallowed fully and the CIT(A) upheld disallowance partly to the extent of Rs. 1,82,66,673/-. Now, the assessee claims that it should have been allowed fully. 11. Facts apropos to this

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

2: 10. This ground relates to the deduction of depreciation on plant and machinery. The assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 3,89,37,375/-; the AO disallowed fully and the CIT(A) upheld disallowance partly to the extent of Rs. 1,82,66,673/-. Now, the assessee claims that it should have been allowed fully. 11. Facts apropos to this

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

2: 10. This ground relates to the deduction of depreciation on plant and machinery. The assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 3,89,37,375/-; the AO disallowed fully and the CIT(A) upheld disallowance partly to the extent of Rs. 1,82,66,673/-. Now, the assessee claims that it should have been allowed fully. 11. Facts apropos to this

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

2: 10. This ground relates to the deduction of depreciation on plant and machinery. The assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 3,89,37,375/-; the AO disallowed fully and the CIT(A) upheld disallowance partly to the extent of Rs. 1,82,66,673/-. Now, the assessee claims that it should have been allowed fully. 11. Facts apropos to this

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

2: 10. This ground relates to the deduction of depreciation on plant and machinery. The assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 3,89,37,375/-; the AO disallowed fully and the CIT(A) upheld disallowance partly to the extent of Rs. 1,82,66,673/-. Now, the assessee claims that it should have been allowed fully. 11. Facts apropos to this

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

2: 10. This ground relates to the deduction of depreciation on plant and machinery. The assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 3,89,37,375/-; the AO disallowed fully and the CIT(A) upheld disallowance partly to the extent of Rs. 1,82,66,673/-. Now, the assessee claims that it should have been allowed fully. 11. Facts apropos to this

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

2: 10. This ground relates to the deduction of depreciation on plant and machinery. The assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 3,89,37,375/-; the AO disallowed fully and the CIT(A) upheld disallowance partly to the extent of Rs. 1,82,66,673/-. Now, the assessee claims that it should have been allowed fully. 11. Facts apropos to this

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

2,62,79,228 14-09-2007 1,40,00,000 15-12-2007 5,00,00,000 15-12-2007 1,30,00,000 15-03-2008 1,63,00,000 18-09-2008 40,00,000 25-09-2008 17,00,000 27-09-2008 1,23,37,620 Total 13,76,16,848 11. That, in pursuance

SHRI ARUN KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA,INDORE vs. ASSTT, DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Shri Arun Kumar Adit, Cpc, Shrivastava, Bangalore 9, Shakti Nagar, Vs. Kanadia Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aopps 9595 H Assessee By Shri Soumya Bomb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va). In fact, it falls under the provision of section 36(1)(iv) read with section 43B, the effect of which is such that if the assessee makes payment upto due date u/s 139(1) for filing of return, the deduction is very allowable and no disallowance

M/S VIJAY PULSES,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 4(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S. Vijay Pulses, Dcit, Cpc, 12, Sajan Nagar, Bangalore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaafv 9714 E Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

disallowance in terms of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va). M/s.Vijay Pulses Page 4 of 8 5. Regarding

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

1 and 3 of sub-section (2) of section 271AAA of the Act and that the assessee has admitted the undisclosed income in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act during the course of search and has also paid taxes together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income. The bone of contention revolves round

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

1 and 3 of sub-section (2) of section 271AAA of the Act and that the assessee has admitted the undisclosed income in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act during the course of search and has also paid taxes together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income. The bone of contention revolves round

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

1 and 3 of sub-section (2) of section 271AAA of the Act and that the assessee has admitted the undisclosed income in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act during the course of search and has also paid taxes together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income. The bone of contention revolves round

MILLION TRADERS BHOPAL P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

1 of 24 ITA No.124/Ind/2023 & ITANo.35/Ind/2023 Million Trader Bhopal Page 2 of 24 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred and not justified in his findings that the denial of credit of TCS of Rs. 8226254 is lawful, such findings be held as unlawful and injudicious

MILLION TRADERS BHOPAL P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

1 of 24 ITA No.124/Ind/2023 & ITANo.35/Ind/2023 Million Trader Bhopal Page 2 of 24 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred and not justified in his findings that the denial of credit of TCS of Rs. 8226254 is lawful, such findings be held as unlawful and injudicious

SUCH MEDIA PUBLICATION P LTD ,CIT (A) NFAC DELHI vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

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

disallowance has been upheld u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x), the only grievance of assessee is that such adjustment could not have been made by AO in the intimation passed u/s 143(1) by resorting to the provisions of section

M/S DAULATARAM ENGINEERING SERVICES P.LTD,MANDIDEEP vs. THE ADIT/CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

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

2. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) to challenge the orders made by the Assessing Officer, CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT, disallowing an adjustment under section 143(1

KWALITY MOTEL SHIRAZ,BHOPAL vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEBER, SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTNT MEMBER Kwality Motel Shiraz 1, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal-462021

2 Kwality Motel Shiraz vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], New Delhi has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 4,64,014/- on account of employees' contribution of Provident Fund deposited late by invoking the provisions of Section