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

disallowance made at Rs.2048173/- therefore, be kindly deleted. 4. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned lower authorities wholly wrong and opposed to fact that the society had paid Rs.561877 to Vijay Ramani who is the member of the society and therefore, there is violation of section 13

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

disallowance made at Rs.2048173/- therefore, be kindly deleted. 4. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned lower authorities wholly wrong and opposed to fact that the society had paid Rs.561877 to Vijay Ramani who is the member of the society and therefore, there is violation of section 13

M/S HAI HAY KSHATRIYA EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Hon’Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon’Blea.Y. 2011-12 H.K. Kalchuri Education Trust, Bhopal Pan – Aaath 3738 E ::: Appellant

section 13(1)(c)(ii) r.w.s. 13(2)(b) r.w.s. 13(3) and thus the assessee is fully eligible for exemption u/s.11 & 12 of the I.T. Act. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the following additions/disallowances. Such additions/disallowances are wholly unlawful and injudicious hence

M/S H.K. KALCHURI EDUCATION TRUST,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Hon’Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon’Blea.Y. 2011-12 H.K. Kalchuri Education Trust, Bhopal Pan – Aaath 3738 E ::: Appellant

section 13(1)(c)(ii) r.w.s. 13(2)(b) r.w.s. 13(3) and thus the assessee is fully eligible for exemption u/s.11 & 12 of the I.T. Act. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the following additions/disallowances. Such additions/disallowances are wholly unlawful and injudicious hence

M/S JAI NARAIN SHIKSHA SAMITI,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Hon’Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon’Blea.Y. 2011-12 H.K. Kalchuri Education Trust, Bhopal Pan – Aaath 3738 E ::: Appellant

section 13(1)(c)(ii) r.w.s. 13(2)(b) r.w.s. 13(3) and thus the assessee is fully eligible for exemption u/s.11 & 12 of the I.T. Act. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the following additions/disallowances. Such additions/disallowances are wholly unlawful and injudicious hence

M/S RISHIRAJ MEMORIAL EDUCATION & WELFARE SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Hon’Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon’Blea.Y. 2011-12 H.K. Kalchuri Education Trust, Bhopal Pan – Aaath 3738 E ::: Appellant

section 13(1)(c)(ii) r.w.s. 13(2)(b) r.w.s. 13(3) and thus the assessee is fully eligible for exemption u/s.11 & 12 of the I.T. Act. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the following additions/disallowances. Such additions/disallowances are wholly unlawful and injudicious hence

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 of the Act and proceeded to cancel the registration granted u/s 12AA of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by this the assessee is in present appeal

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

13. Replying to the above, the ld. AR took us through the relevant part of the first appellate order as well as the assessment order and submitted that the AO proposed to disallow the freight expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-compliance of provisions of section 194C(7) of the Act and the AO made disallowance by observing that

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

13. Replying to the above, the ld. AR took us through the relevant part of the first appellate order as well as the assessment order and submitted that the AO proposed to disallow the freight expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-compliance of provisions of section 194C(7) of the Act and the AO made disallowance by observing that

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

13. Replying to the above, the ld. AR took us through the relevant part of the first appellate order as well as the assessment order and submitted that the AO proposed to disallow the freight expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-compliance of provisions of section 194C(7) of the Act and the AO made disallowance by observing that

M/S. MADHYA PRADESH CRICKET ASSOCIATION,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed and consequently the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13 Madhya Pradesh Cricket Dcit, 1(1), Association Indore बनाम/ Holkar Stadium, Vs. 7, Race Course Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaatg3527C Appellant By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Shri Arpit Gaur (Ar) Revenue By Shri Lal Chand (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.06.2017

disallowed the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 11(1)(a) & 11(2) of the Act amounting to Rs.4,80,95,629/- and Rs.11,88,81,442/- respectively. 4. The aggrieved assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) but without success as the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the first appellate authority upholding the order

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 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. 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

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

13 I.T.A. No.371/Ind/2024 Infobeans Technologies Ltd. v. PCIT point out that the provisions of section 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer, it is only when an order is erroneous that the section will be attracted and incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will

CHIRAYU CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,BHOPAL vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradchirayu Charitable Pcit (Central), Foundation,Bhopal Indore Bhopal Highway, Bhaisakhedi, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aaaac3656P Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Advocate, Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar, Advs Date Of Hearing 05.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement .02.2021 O R D E R Per Manish Borad, Am.

9 of the impugned order, the Commissioner records that the violation of section 11 & 13 of the Act would result in forfeiture of exemption not only for the year in which such transactions occur but also for the years when such arrangement continues to be in force. In our considered opinion, such an approach of the Commissioner is quiet misdirected

THE ADIT CPC , BENGALURU vs. SUNDERLAL MOOLCHAND JAIN, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S Sunderlal Moolchand Adit, Cpc, Jain Tobacconist Private Bangalore Limited, Vs. 31, Kacchi Mohalla, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaecs 7779 P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

9), serial number 21(h) amount of deduction inadmissible in terms of section 14A etc, there is a specific requirement that the auditor has to mention whether the expenditure is admissible/allowable or not. However, so far as section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the audit report does not require the auditor to make a specific observation regarding “admissibility/inadmissibility

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

9. Per contra, the Ld. AR submitted that the decision in Goetze India (supra) should be read fully and not in piecemeal or partly. According to Ld. AR, in this decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the restriction to admit a new claim is on the assessing authority only and it does not impinge

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

9. Then, the Ld. AR relied upon the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad in Koya& Co. Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2012) 21 Taxmann.Com 35 (Hyd) where it was held thus: Page 13 of 27 Shreenathji Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.310 to 314/Ind/2018 A.Y.2009-10,2010-11, 2012-13 to 2014-15 “23. The next question is to be answered is whether

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

9. Then, the Ld. AR relied upon the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad in Koya& Co. Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2012) 21 Taxmann.Com 35 (Hyd) where it was held thus: Page 13 of 27 Shreenathji Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.310 to 314/Ind/2018 A.Y.2009-10,2010-11, 2012-13 to 2014-15 “23. The next question is to be answered is whether