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

disallowing expenditure towards earning of such income, under section 14A, whereas, no expenditure was in fact incurred by the assessee towards earning such income. 25. The ld. AO has erred in computing interest u/s 234B of the Act on the assessed income since the addition to the returned income on account of Transfer Pricing adjustment is only a notional income

BEYONDKEY SYSTEMS P LTD,INDORE vs. THE DY CIT 1(1), INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Beyondkey Systems Pvt. Dcit 1(1) Ltd. Indore 901A & B, बनाम/ Nrk Business Park, Block B1, Pu4, Vs. Scheme No.54, Vijay Nagar Square, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaccb 7622 G Assessee By Shri Manish Dafaria, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2022 / 16.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

7 of the order of CIT(A) and pointed out that the assessee itself admitted its own reporting mistake in the ITR i.e. while filing original ITR, the assessee wrongly mentioned/claimed deduction in the Schedule of section 10B instead of section 10A. Thus, the ITR filed by assessee revealed that the assessee claimed deduction u/s 10B and not u/s 10A

ASHA RANI PANDYA,INDORE vs. CPC BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniasha Rani Pandya Dcit/Acit-1(1) 389 1Ad- Scheme No.74C Indore Vijay Nagar, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aqqpp7081A Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain & Shri Prakash Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28 .06.2024

section 90 read with Rule 128(9) is a procedural law and should not control the claim of FTC. Page 10 of 14 ITANo.176/Ind/2024 Asha Rani Pandya 12. It was further submitted that even in the context of 80IA(7), 10A(5) etc, wherein there is specific provision for disallowance

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. FLEXITUFF VENTURES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, DHAR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Us Assailing The Order Of First-

7. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, when the tax-exempt income was Nil during the year, the AO was not justified in making disallowance u/s 14A in AY 2013-14 as involved in present appeal. Accordingly, we hold that the disallowance made by AO is not sustainable. The ground No. 1 raised by revenue

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. SHAKTI PUMPS (INDIA) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit (Central)-2, Shakti Pumps (India) Ltd. Indore 226, Shastri Market, बनाम/ M.G. Road, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaecs 5027 L Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Vijay Bansal, Ars Date Of Hearing 23/11/2022 / 22.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.04.2023

10A Rs.70089407/- after reallocation of expenses the exempted income has reduced by Rs.41793546/- and remained of Rs.28295861/-The reallocated expenses have reduced from the expenses of DTA unit. Therefore, taxable income has increased by Rs.41793546/-.” 2.26 It has been submitted by the appellant that it had correctly claimed deduction u/s 10AA in accordance with the provisions of section 10AA(7

AKSHAY ACADEMY,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniakshay Academy Ito, Nfac 32 Kaimaidan Road, Delhi Khasgi Gagicha Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadta8987B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

10A seeking Registration u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed on 29.03.2019". The registration u/s 12AA was granted on 28.09.2019 only from the A.Y. 2019-20. Hence, it is clear that there is no registration u/s 12AA for the A.Y. 2018-19 and hence allowing exemption u/s 11 for the A.Y. 2018-19 does not arise

DCIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result appeals of the revenue & assessee are

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

7 [IT(SS)A No.99/Ind/2016 and Others ] [Pankaj Kalani & Others ] the undisclosed income of the assessee? 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the facts that thenames appearing in the seized document were belonged to the assessee and employee of assessee and also apparent from the statement recorded

THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD., INDORE

In the result appeals of the revenue & assessee are

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

7 [IT(SS)A No.99/Ind/2016 and Others ] [Pankaj Kalani & Others ] the undisclosed income of the assessee? 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the facts that thenames appearing in the seized document were belonged to the assessee and employee of assessee and also apparent from the statement recorded

DCIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result appeals of the revenue & assessee are

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

7 [IT(SS)A No.99/Ind/2016 and Others ] [Pankaj Kalani & Others ] the undisclosed income of the assessee? 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the facts that thenames appearing in the seized document were belonged to the assessee and employee of assessee and also apparent from the statement recorded

THE ACIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result appeals of the revenue & assessee are

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

7 [IT(SS)A No.99/Ind/2016 and Others ] [Pankaj Kalani & Others ] the undisclosed income of the assessee? 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the facts that thenames appearing in the seized document were belonged to the assessee and employee of assessee and also apparent from the statement recorded