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

10B(1)(a) e) questioning the commercial rationale of the legitimate business expense incurred by the taxpayer and not restricting the scope of assessment under section 92CA to determining the arm`s length price of international transactions by adopting one of the prescribed method only. 4. The DRP also erred in issuing directions with certain typographical errors, which denied

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

10B(1)(a) e) questioning the commercial rationale of the legitimate business expense incurred by the taxpayer and not restricting the scope of assessment under section 92CA to determining the arm`s length price of international transactions by adopting one of the prescribed method only. 4. The DRP also erred in issuing directions with certain typographical errors, which denied

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

10B(1)(a) e) questioning the commercial rationale of the legitimate business expense incurred by the taxpayer and not restricting the scope of assessment under section 92CA to determining the arm`s length price of international transactions by adopting one of the prescribed method only. 4. The DRP also erred in issuing directions with certain typographical errors, which denied

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

10B(1)(a) e) questioning the commercial rationale of the legitimate business expense incurred by the taxpayer and not restricting the scope of assessment under section 92CA to determining the arm`s length price of international transactions by adopting one of the prescribed method only. 4. The DRP also erred in issuing directions with certain typographical errors, which denied

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

THE ACIT,CENTRAL-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

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-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

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

1, 7 and 9 submitted the fact of disclosing job work income of Rs. 34,19, 894 / as other income in the P&L account and also explained the reason for excessive claim of power & fuel expenditure against the income. He has submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that section 147 does not allow the re-assessment

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

1, 7 and 9 submitted the fact of disclosing job work income of Rs. 34,19, 894 / as other income in the P&L account and also explained the reason for excessive claim of power & fuel expenditure against the income. He has submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that section 147 does not allow the re-assessment

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

1, 7 and 9 submitted the fact of disclosing job work income of Rs. 34,19, 894 / as other income in the P&L account and also explained the reason for excessive claim of power & fuel expenditure against the income. He has submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that section 147 does not allow the re-assessment

DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL vs. VANASHPATI SMRITI SHIKSHA SAMITI, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the cross- objection of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani(Virtual Hearing) & C.O. No.33/Ind/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit (Exemption) Vanashpati Smriti Bhopal Shiksha Samiti, Bhopal बनाम/ (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Vs. P.A. No. Aadts0547H Appellant By Shri P.K. Mitra Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Pavan Ved, Ar Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

10B, which was taken up for scrutiny by serving statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The Ld. AO passed order of assessment u/s 143(3) on 07/12/2018 at a total income of Rs. 10,97,04,778/- after making certain adjustments. Being aggrieved by the order of assessment, the assessee submitted appeal

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

1. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the assessment order passed by the ld AO under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (’he Act’) dated February 5, 2016 is without jurisdiction and is bad in law. 2. on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

1. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the assessment order passed by the ld AO under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (’he Act’) dated February 5, 2016 is without jurisdiction and is bad in law. 2. on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

1. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the assessment order passed by the ld AO under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (’he Act’) dated February 5, 2016 is without jurisdiction and is bad in law. 2. on the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S. FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD.,DHAR vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 M/S. Flexituff International Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd, Vs. Income Tax-1, C-41-50, Sez, Sector-3, Indore Pithampur, Dist. Dhar (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Aaacn5986H Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit Assessee By Shri Manjit Sachdeva & Avinash Gaur, Advocates Date Of Hearing 26.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 14.05.2019 O R D E R

disallowance of Rs.15,82,154/- made under the head interest paid on income tax which was debited by the assessee in P&L A/c as finance cost. In view of section 115JB of Income Tax Act, the interest on Flexituff International Ltd income tax should be added back in the book profit for calculation of MAT u/s 115JB. Hence

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

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 10B in ITR was by mistake and the assessee has in fact claimed u/s 10A. It is further

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

section 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, the said deposits were made prior to filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 6.1 Of course, it is a case in point that the assessee did not file any appeal against the intimations passed us 143(1) of the Act and the Ld. Sr. DR is right