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 CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 40(a)(ia) read with section 194C of the Act. The ld. AR also relied on the order of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of ITO vs. M/s Sugar Chem in ITA No.2071/Mum/2016, to support the said proposition. 14

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 under section 14A of the Act 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Pr. CIT erred issuing show-cause notice dated 14

SAHARAYN UNIVERSAL MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

section 254\nof the IT Act, 1961. There shall be no order as to costs.\nFurther, in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) it was observed that :\nDeduction claimed by way of a letter before the AO, was disallowed on the\nground that there was no provision under the Act to make amendment in the return\nwithout filing

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. 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

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).

section 143(1) of the Act was passed on 18-04-2020. The income was assessed at ₹ 14,13,310/- in the said intimation by making disallowance

GUNVEER SINGH CHHABRA ,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -1, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

14)(iii) of the Act, the capital gain if, at all, is not eligible to tax. ITA No. 117/Ind/2021 (Gunveer Singh Chhabra vs. PCIT) A.Y. 2015-16 8 11. On the other hand, apart from relying upon the certificate issued by the SDM , the Revenue has come up with the further case that the aerial distance of the land

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance of amount deducted by PWD for time extension but the then Assessing Officer after 14 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others examination of all the relevant material placed on record reached to a conclusion that the amount deducted by PWD for delay in completion of work was compensatory in nature and not penal in nature and accordingly

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance of amount deducted by PWD for time extension but the then Assessing Officer after 14 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others examination of all the relevant material placed on record reached to a conclusion that the amount deducted by PWD for delay in completion of work was compensatory in nature and not penal in nature and accordingly

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance of amount deducted by PWD for time extension but the then Assessing Officer after 14 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others examination of all the relevant material placed on record reached to a conclusion that the amount deducted by PWD for delay in completion of work was compensatory in nature and not penal in nature and accordingly

SMT. PUSHPA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO WARD 5(2), INDORE, AAYKAR BHAWAN, OPPOSITE WHITE CHURCH, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

disallowance of Rs.54,331/- out of interest expenditure claimed by assessee. The AO, however, accepted taxable capital gain at Rs. Nil as declared by assessee.\n(ii) Subsequently, following an audit objection in the case of assessee qua the wrong claim of exemption u/s 54B, the AO recorded reasons [copy of reasons at Page 3 of Paper-Book

M/S. DIASPARK INFOTECH PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE NFAC ,NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & T.R. Senthil Kumar

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the DCIT, Centralised Processing Centre, by which the AO made an addition of Rs.34,14,004/- on account of disallowance

DXC TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT LTD,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Section 14 A of the Act, the constant tug-of-war lies in\nthe Revenue wanting to increase the expenditure incurred to earn exempt\nincome for the purpose of disallowance

M/S AGARWAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,BHOPAL vs. DYPTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

disallowance made u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act by the lower authorities was deleted and assessee’s claim u/s 80IB(10) of the Act was allowed by this Tribunal after examining the facts of the case and also following the settled judicial pronouncements. Relevant extract of the order of this Tribunal are reproduced below: 12. We have heard both

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S AGRAWAL CONSTRUCTION CO., BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

disallowance made u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act by the lower authorities was deleted and assessee’s claim u/s 80IB(10) of the Act was allowed by this Tribunal after examining the facts of the case and also following the settled judicial pronouncements. Relevant extract of the order of this Tribunal are reproduced below: 12. We have heard both

MUDIT KUMAR BAJAJ,UJJAIN vs. ITO-1(2), UJJAIN

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aezpb2621P Assessee By Ms. Nupur Ladha & Shri Vaibhav Siroliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2024 O R D E R

disallowance of the expenditure so claimed. 14 Mudi Kumar Bajaj 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to the provisions of section

M/S J.C.SHARMA & SONS,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

section 37 of I.T. Act. In Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 350 (SC), it was held that a penalty imposed for breach of any law during the course of trade etc, cannot be described as a commercial loss. If a sum is paid by an assessee conducting his business, because in conducting