M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 11 & 12 of the Act. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the A.O. had rightly disallowed the appellant

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 made by AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on sound footings. 12. Drawing our attention to the relevant part of the assessment order, the ld. CIT- DR vehemently pointed out that the provisions of section

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 made by AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on sound footings. 12. Drawing our attention to the relevant part of the assessment order, the ld. CIT- DR vehemently pointed out that the provisions of section

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 made by AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on sound footings. 12. Drawing our attention to the relevant part of the assessment order, the ld. CIT- DR vehemently pointed out that the provisions of section

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

disallowance u/s 14A will be NIL and in such cases the twin conditions for assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 are not satisfied. 12

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the 8,12,755 Act 5 Employee remuneration and benefit 18,91,316 6 Disallowance

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the 8,12,755 Act 5 Employee remuneration and benefit 18,91,316 6 Disallowance

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the 8,12,755 Act 5 Employee remuneration and benefit 18,91,316 6 Disallowance

M/S. M. P. COUNCIL FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION & TRAINING BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. THE CIT (EXEMPYION) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

section 12A(2) and therefore perfectly eligible for exemption u/s 11 / 12. Hence the Ld. AR requested to direct the Ld. AO to allow exemption u/s 11 / 12 to the assessee, if for any reason the exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) is not allowed. 9. Per contra, the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of lower authorities qua the disallowance

M/S. M. P. COUNCIL FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION & TRAINING BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. THE CIT (EXEMPYION) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

section 12A(2) and therefore perfectly eligible for exemption u/s 11 / 12. Hence the Ld. AR requested to direct the Ld. AO to allow exemption u/s 11 / 12 to the assessee, if for any reason the exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) is not allowed. 9. Per contra, the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of lower authorities qua the disallowance

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

12] [In favour of assessee] [CLPB 141-152] In the instant case, registration granted u/s 12AA was cancelled by invoking provisions of section 12AA(3) and 12AA(4) read with sections 13(1)(c)(ii) and section 13(3). Violation of provisions of section 13 cannot be a basis for cancellation of registration u/s 12AA. Impugned order cancelling the registration

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

12] [In favour of assessee] [CLPB 141-152] In the instant case, registration granted u/s 12AA was cancelled by invoking provisions of section 12AA(3) and 12AA(4) read with sections 13(1)(c)(ii) and section 13(3). Violation of provisions of section 13 cannot be a basis for cancellation of registration u/s 12AA. Impugned order cancelling the registration

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

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 O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, AM: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 14.07.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi

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

disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before us. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company was incorporated in India on 13.09.1996. The assessee provides software development and maintenance services from STPI and SEZ registered units. The primary activities of the assessee relate to provision

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

disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before us. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company was incorporated in India on 13.09.1996. The assessee provides software development and maintenance services from STPI and SEZ registered units. The primary activities of the assessee relate to provision

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

disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before us. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company was incorporated in India on 13.09.1996. The assessee provides software development and maintenance services from STPI and SEZ registered units. The primary activities of the assessee relate to provision

M/S. BARKATUIIAH VISHWAVIDYALAYA ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 10(23C)(iiiab). Accordingly, Ld. DR requested to uphold the disallowance made by lower authorities. However, the Ld. DR did not make any opposition to the alternative claim of exemption u/s 11 / 12

M/S. RISHIRAJ K.M.B. EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. THE CIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: Na

disallowed the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 11 and assessed the total income. In this background the Ld. CIT observed that the assessee society had violated the provisions of sections 11 & 12