M/S. SANEE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT , BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Sanee Infrastructure Pr.Cit-2, Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Bhopal D-1, Machna Colony, 6 No Bus Stop, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aagcs8307M Appellant By Shri Arun Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit Date Of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01.06.2020 O R D E R

119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. ITANo.742/Ind/2018 (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from

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

disallowance made by lower authorities. However, the Ld. DR did not make any opposition to the alternative claim of exemption u/s 11 / 12 made by Ld. AR. 10. We have considered rival submissions of both sides, perused the records, considered the provisions of law and judicial precedents. We would first deal with the claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab

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

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

disallowing the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act. The AO has in his order has stated that the assessee has filed a belated return on 30.03.2018 for the said assessment year, however, has not fled the audit report in Form 108. Accordingly. the AD rejected the claim off exemption and the addition made by AO, CPC was sustained

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

119 (Gujarat High Court) and CIT v. Marikamba Transport Co. In 319 ITU 129 (Karnataka) and v at tons decisions of coordinates benches of Honourable ITAT and concluded that if the assessee compiles with the provisions of section 194C(6) of the Act, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act does not arise just because there is violation

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

119 (Gujarat High Court) and CIT v. Marikamba Transport Co. In 319 ITU 129 (Karnataka) and v at tons decisions of coordinates benches of Honourable ITAT and concluded that if the assessee compiles with the provisions of section 194C(6) of the Act, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act does not arise just because there is violation

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

119 (Gujarat High Court) and CIT v. Marikamba Transport Co. In 319 ITU 129 (Karnataka) and v at tons decisions of coordinates benches of Honourable ITAT and concluded that if the assessee compiles with the provisions of section 194C(6) of the Act, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act does not arise just because there is violation

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

disallowing said payments under section 40A (3)- Whether on facts, impugned revisional order did not require any interference- Held, yes [Para-16] [ In favour of revenue] 4.0 Therefore, in view of the above discussion I am of the considered opinion that the order dated: 06.01.2016 for A.Y. 2013-14 is erroneous in so far as it is also prejudicial

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL , BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

b) of revenue are devoid of any merit, accordingly they are rejected. Ground No. 2: 12. In this ground, the revenue challenges the CIT(A)’s action of deleting the disallowance of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- made by AO out of purchase expenditure claimed by assessee. 13. The AO has made this disallowance vide Para 5 of assessment-order

SOM DISTILLERIES PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(3), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

b) of revenue are devoid of any merit, accordingly they are rejected. Ground No. 2: 12. In this ground, the revenue challenges the CIT(A)’s action of deleting the disallowance of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- made by AO out of purchase expenditure claimed by assessee. 13. The AO has made this disallowance vide Para 5 of assessment-order

INFOBEANS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE, M.P.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed being devoid of

Bench: Sh. Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision, prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme

M/S. CHARITRA GOLD PVT. LTD.,RATLAM vs. THE PR. CIT, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

119 or (d) order has not been passed in accordance with any decision, which is prejudicial to the assessee rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. In the present case, Principal CIT has revised the order on the ground that the A.O. has failed to make enquiries

SHRI MANOJ MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

119 or (d) order has not been passed in accordance with any decision, which is prejudicial to the assessee rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. In the present case, Principal CIT has revised the order on the ground that the A.O. has failed to make enquiries

SHRI ADITYA MUNDRA,DEWAS vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

119 or (d) order has not been passed in accordance with any decision, which is prejudicial to the assessee rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. In the present case, Principal CIT has revised the order on the ground that the A.O. has failed to make enquiries

SHRI GOVIND DAS MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

119 or (d) order has not been passed in accordance with any decision, which is prejudicial to the assessee rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. In the present case, Principal CIT has revised the order on the ground that the A.O. has failed to make enquiries

DHIRENDRA INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,NEEMUCH vs. PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

119 or (d) order has not been passed in accordance with any decision, which is prejudicial to the assessee rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. In the present case, Principal CIT has revised the order on the ground that the A.O. has failed to make enquiries

SHRI MANISH MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

119 or (d) order has not been passed in accordance with any decision, which is prejudicial to the assessee rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. In the present case, Principal CIT has revised the order on the ground that the A.O. has failed to make enquiries

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

b) It appears that the proceedings have been initiated on the basis of audit objection raised regarding ‘irregular deduction under section 80IB (11A)’ It is on the basis of this information that the AO appears to have formed his belief that income to the extent of Rs.6,47,46,882/- has escaped assessment in the AY 2012-13 within

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

b) It appears that the proceedings have been initiated on the basis of audit objection raised regarding ‘irregular deduction under section 80IB (11A)’ It is on the basis of this information that the AO appears to have formed his belief that income to the extent of Rs.6,47,46,882/- has escaped assessment in the AY 2012-13 within