THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance u/s 68 of the Act pertaining to accommodation entry received by the assessee through shell entities and has also paid commission to the intermediaries @ 1%. The ld. CIT-DR submitted that the AO made addition by considering the statement of Director of Mega Money Commodities Pvt. Ltd. (MMCPL) which was deleted by the ld.CIT(A) without any basis. Therefore

NARENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

10B) of the Act in its ITR. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.\n25,17,000/- out of total emoluments of Rs. 30,17,000/- and added back to the\nincome of the Assessee as the scheme was on voluntary basis not compulsory\nas per 2nd proviso of Section

SHRI GUPTNATH BAL SHIKSHAN SAMITI MACHALPUR,MACHALPUR vs. ITO WARD RAJGARH, RAJGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in\nterms mentioned above

10B,\nthen the assessee had to file a declaration but this is not a case in section\n10(23C)(vi).\n10.\n16.\nIn view of above discussions, we hold that the assessee is eligble for\nexemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) as per approval granted by CIT(E) vide order dated\n10.08.2018 for AY 2017-18 under consideration. Accordingly, we direct

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT-CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

10B(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’) which authoress abusage of multiple year data of comparable companies for the purpose of determination of the ALP under section 92F of the Act. 4.4 Rejecting the comparable companies identified by the appellant in its transfer pricing study. 4.5 conducting fresh search by rejecting the objections raised by the appellant

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 2(1) , INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

10B(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’) which authoress abusage of multiple year data of comparable companies for the purpose of determination of the ALP under section 92F of the Act. 4.4 Rejecting the comparable companies identified by the appellant in its transfer pricing study. 4.5 conducting fresh search by rejecting the objections raised by the appellant

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

10B(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’) which authoress abusage of multiple year data of comparable companies for the purpose of determination of the ALP under section 92F of the Act. 4.4 Rejecting the comparable companies identified by the appellant in its transfer pricing study. 4.5 conducting fresh search by rejecting the objections raised by the appellant

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

disallowed deduction only on the basis that it was claimed u/s 10B in the ITR and the Ld. CIT(A) has also supported the reasoning given by AO. But the assessee has repeatedly explained to the authorities that the mention in section

HARDA NAGAR BAL VIKAS SAMITI HARDA ,SARSWATI SHISHU MANDIR vs. ITO-1, HARDA, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms mentioned above

disallowances are acceptable to assessee.\n(iii) The AO has invoked taxing section 115BBE for calculation of tax liability which is not applicable even if there remains any total income after re-computation.\n11. Per contra, Ld. DR for revenue made following submissions:\n(i) The provision of section 139(4C) obligating the assessee to file return is a mandatory

NANCY ANN MILLER EDUCATIONAL TRUST,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-EXEMPTION, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2018-19 Nancy Ann Miller Income-Tax Officer, Educational Trust, Ward-(Exemption), बनाम/ 64/67, Dhar Kothi, Indore. Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaatn4010B Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2024

10B) but the assessee has not filed any condonation-petition before Commissioner of Income-tax. This point is also rejected by Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in Para 5.6 of their judgement in Indian Panel Board Manufacturer Vs. DCIT Tax Appeal No. 655 of 2022 dated 21.03.2023. For clarity, we may mention that the Circular referred in the judgement

SHRI VISHWAMITRA SHIKSHAN SAMITI,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Vishwamitra Income-Tax Officer, Shikshan Samiti, 5(1), 104, J. B. Complex, Indore. बनाम/ Race Course Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aajts1473J Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2024

10B) but the assessee has not availed that remedy. This point is also rejected by Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in Para 5.6 of their judgement in Indian Panel Board Manufacturer Vs. DCIT Tax Appeal No. 655 of 2022 dated 21.03.2023. For clarity, we may mention that the Circular referred in the judgement is 7/18 dated 20.12.2018 which

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. MARAL OVERSEAS LTD, KHARGONE

In the result appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-4(1), Indore Maral Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Maral Sarovar, V& Po Vs. Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal

10B is resolved by ITAT Indore Bench in their own case which is reported in (2012) 136 ITD 177 (Indore)(SB) dated 28.03.2012. 3.7 The issue of Ad hoc disallowance of Rs. 1 lakh as business promotion expenses too stands resolved by ITAT Indore bench in ITA No. 415/Ind/2000 dated 15.12.2009 wherein also the ad hoc disallowance

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

disallowed if the assessee does not file Form 67 within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. It was submitted that that there are many sections in the Act which specifically deny deduction or exemption or relief in case the return is not filed within prescribed time. Reference was made to section 80AC

THE INDORE PENTECOSTAL CHURCH OF GOD,INDORE vs. DCIT (CPC) , BHOPAL

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Indore Pentecostal Dcit(Cpc), बनाम/ Church Of God, Bangalore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aactt 3942 J Assessee By Shri C.H. Padliya Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2023

10B denied the benefit of section 11 of the Act.” 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case- records perused. 3. The sole grievance of assessee raised in the grounds cited above is such that the lower authorities have wrongly denied exemption u/s 11 on the footing that the assessee does not have registration

SHRI DANDI SEWA ASHRAM,ONKARESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION , BHOPAL

In the result the \"Impugned order\" is set aside as and by\nway of remand back to the file of the Ld

Section 10(24) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the assessee failed to file the mandatory audit report in Form 10B along with the return. The Assessing Officer processed the return, disallowed

SHREE SHANTANU VIDHYAPEETH SOCIETY ,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

10B by due date for filing of\nreturn.\n\n(iii)\nThe 2nd proviso to section 12A(2) relied by assessee became effective\nfrom 01.04.2021 and the same was not applicable for AY 2018-19\nunder consideration.\n\n22.\nSo far as the first two reasons assigned by AO are concerned, Ld. AR\nsubmitted that there are at least three

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

10B not filed for the A.Y. 2018-19 within the stipulated time.” 5.1 The AO has not disputed the fact that during the pendency of the assessment proceedings the assessee was granted registration u/s 12AA vide order dated 28th September 2019 w.e.f assessment year 2019-20 which is recorded in para 3 of the assessment order as under

BHARTIYA AADARSH SHIKSHAN SAMITI,MANDSAUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose, subject\nto payment of cost of Rs

Section 12A(2) of the Act, the\nbenefit of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act shall apply on all the pending\nproceedings and thus, the Intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 26.02.2020,\nwithout considering the 12AA Registration Certificate dated 29.07.2019, is\nliable to be set aside and exemption u/s. 11 of the Act may kindly be allowed