DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

disallowed by the Ld. AO in the assessment order wherein he held that the assessee is merely executing government contract in the capacity of a work contractor and not developer. AO further observed that no risk is undertaken by the assessee and therefore, it cannot be termed as developer as envisaged u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. In the appellate

SHRI DILIP BUILDCON LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

disallowed by the Ld. AO in the assessment order wherein he held that the assessee is merely executing government contract in the capacity of a work contractor and not developer. AO further observed that no risk is undertaken by the assessee and therefore, it cannot be termed as developer as envisaged u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. In the appellate

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

disallowed by the Ld. AO in the assessment order wherein he held that the assessee is merely executing government contract in the capacity of a work contractor and not developer. AO further observed that no risk is undertaken by the assessee and therefore, it cannot be termed as developer as envisaged u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. In the appellate

THED CIT ,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S DILIP BUILDCON LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

disallowed by the Ld. AO in the assessment order wherein he held that the assessee is merely executing government contract in the capacity of a work contractor and not developer. AO further observed that no risk is undertaken by the assessee and therefore, it cannot be termed as developer as envisaged u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. In the appellate

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

disallowed by the Ld. AO in the assessment order wherein he held that the assessee is merely executing government contract in the capacity of a work contractor and not developer. AO further observed that no risk is undertaken by the assessee and therefore, it cannot be termed as developer as envisaged u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. In the appellate

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

disallowed by the Ld. AO in the assessment order wherein he held that the assessee is merely executing government contract in the capacity of a work contractor and not developer. AO further observed that no risk is undertaken by the assessee and therefore, it cannot be termed as developer as envisaged u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. In the appellate

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

139 for such year has not expired before the date of search and the assessee has not furnished the return of income for the previous year before the said date; or (ii) in which search was conducted.” 19. From the perusal of the above section we observe that the penalty cannot be levied if the assessee fulfils three conditions mentioned

M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

139 for such year has not expired before the date of search and the assessee has not furnished the return of income for the previous year before the said date; or (ii) in which search was conducted.” 19. From the perusal of the above section we observe that the penalty cannot be levied if the assessee fulfils three conditions mentioned

M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

139 for such year has not expired before the date of search and the assessee has not furnished the return of income for the previous year before the said date; or (ii) in which search was conducted.” 19. From the perusal of the above section we observe that the penalty cannot be levied if the assessee fulfils three conditions mentioned

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowances ouf of various expenses claimed by the appellant whereas the remaining addition of Rs.8,83,283/- was made by invoking the provisions of S.14A of the Act. The AO while passing the assessment order also initiated penalty proceedings under S.271AAA of the Act. A copy of the assessment order has already been furnished by the appellant along with

SHRI ARUN KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA,INDORE vs. ASSTT, DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Shri Arun Kumar Adit, Cpc, Shrivastava, Bangalore 9, Shakti Nagar, Vs. Kanadia Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aopps 9595 H Assessee By Shri Soumya Bomb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

4 of 7 (iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139

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

139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total income in the return: A perusal of section 143(1) of the Act shows that the words used are “(iv) disallowance of expenditure …indicated in the audit report” M/s.Vijay Pulses Page

RITIKA JAIN,THANE vs. ITO(IT TP), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAVAN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiritika Jain, Cit (Appeals), बना A-504, Laxmi Residency Chs Nfac, म/ Ltd, Delhi Vs. Opposite Datta Mandir Check Naka, Wagle Estate, Thane

disallowed and treated as unexplained investment made in aforesaid immovable Page 5 of 18 Ritika Jain ITA No. 632/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2015-16 property and being added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act for A.Y. 2015-16. 2.15 The d. A.O thus made addition of Rs. 10,85,000/- (supra). 2.16 That since

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

139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Henceforth, no disallowance is called for as per section 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides and case records perused. 3. Briefly stated the facts are such that the assessee filed his return of income alognwith auditors’ report

KWALITY MOTEL SHIRAZ,BHOPAL vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEBER, SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTNT MEMBER Kwality Motel Shiraz 1, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal-462021

139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total income in the return: A perusal of section 143(1) of the Act shows that the words used are “(iv) disallowance of expenditure …indicated in the audit report” 6.1 Therefore, there is no specific requirement

NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM KARMCHARI KALYAN SAKH SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,UJJAIN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2019-20 Nagar Palika Nigam Cpc, Bangaluru / Karmchari Kalyan Sakh Cit, Nfac, Delhi Sahakari Sanstha बनाम/ Maryadit, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aactn7778G Assessee By Ms. Sonam Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2024

139(4) on 30.09.2020. Therefore, the AO made impugned disallowance while processing assessee’s return u/s 143(1) on the strength of section

SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR BAFNA,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 637/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

139(1) of the Act. Therefore, the AO and CIT (A) were right in disallowing the exemption under section 54F of the Act. 12. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available on record. It is observed that the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 54F was disallowed

PRASHANTI ENGINEERING WORKS P LTD,PITHAMPUR vs. THE ASST.DCIT ,CPC, BANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Under Section 139(1).

disallowing payment of Rs. 24,605 /-of employees contribution to ESI. The payment to Employees state insurance is an expense and not income in the hands of the appellant and the same was paid well in time i.e. much before the due date of filing of return under section 139(1). 3. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals