DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5 1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

ii) Explanation 13 to section 80-IA excludes ‘work contract’ but there is no such prohibitory provision in section 80-IC. (iii) Section 80-IC(4) prescribed only two conditions, viz. (a) the undertaking should not be formed by splitting up or by reconstruction of an undertaking already in existence, and (b) the undertaking should not be formed by transfer

MS MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2 (1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

ii) Explanation 13 to section 80-IA excludes ‘work contract’ but there is no such prohibitory provision in section 80-IC. (iii) Section 80-IC(4) prescribed only two conditions, viz. (a) the undertaking should not be formed by splitting up or by reconstruction of an undertaking already in existence, and (b) the undertaking should not be formed by transfer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -5(1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT. LTD., BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

ii) Explanation 13 to section 80-IA excludes ‘work contract’ but there is no such prohibitory provision in section 80-IC. (iii) Section 80-IC(4) prescribed only two conditions, viz. (a) the undertaking should not be formed by splitting up or by reconstruction of an undertaking already in existence, and (b) the undertaking should not be formed by transfer

MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD ,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT -2- (1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

ii) Explanation 13 to section 80-IA excludes ‘work contract’ but there is no such prohibitory provision in section 80-IC. (iii) Section 80-IC(4) prescribed only two conditions, viz. (a) the undertaking should not be formed by splitting up or by reconstruction of an undertaking already in existence, and (b) the undertaking should not be formed by transfer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 5(1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

ii) Explanation 13 to section 80-IA excludes ‘work contract’ but there is no such prohibitory provision in section 80-IC. (iii) Section 80-IC(4) prescribed only two conditions, viz. (a) the undertaking should not be formed by splitting up or by reconstruction of an undertaking already in existence, and (b) the undertaking should not be formed by transfer

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance. These two grounds of the Revenue are accordingly rejected. 35. Ground No.14 & 15: Issue raised in these two grounds relates to share of profits of Rs.25,56,208/- from partnership firm “Rohit International” treated the same as “unexplained”. These two grounds read as under: 14. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance. These two grounds of the Revenue are accordingly rejected. 35. Ground No.14 & 15: Issue raised in these two grounds relates to share of profits of Rs.25,56,208/- from partnership firm “Rohit International” treated the same as “unexplained”. These two grounds read as under: 14. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance. These two grounds of the Revenue are accordingly rejected. 35. Ground No.14 & 15: Issue raised in these two grounds relates to share of profits of Rs.25,56,208/- from partnership firm “Rohit International” treated the same as “unexplained”. These two grounds read as under: 14. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL,VIDISHA vs. ITO, VIDISHA, VIDISHA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2019-20 Subhash Chandra Ito, Agrawal, Vidisha बनाम/ Galla Mandi, Vs. Vidisha (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afrpa8769A Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri Jaideep Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2026

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.--Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; Page 4 of 10 Subhash Chandra Agrawal ITA No. 354/Ind/2025 – AY 2019-20 (vi) addition

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

143(3) rws 147 for AY 2010-11. Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee along with other grounds raised the following grounds of appeal – a. Disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 3,52,94,416 and [PB 97, ground no. 3] b. Addition on concealment of fees of Rs. 69,70,505 [PB 98, ground no. 7] Ld. CIT(A) accepted

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

143(3) rws 147 for AY 2010-11. Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee along with other grounds raised the following grounds of appeal – a. Disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 3,52,94,416 and [PB 97, ground no. 3] b. Addition on concealment of fees of Rs. 69,70,505 [PB 98, ground no. 7] Ld. CIT(A) accepted

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘A.Y.’) 2011-12 with the following grounds: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘A.Y.’) 2011-12 with the following grounds: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘A.Y.’) 2011-12 with the following grounds: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

JAYANTILAL SANGHVI,INDORE vs. ACIT 4(1), INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Jayantilal Sanghvi, Acit, 8/10, Warehouse Road, 4(1), बनाम/ Patel Bridge, Indore. Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Agtps5825Q Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, C.A. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2024

disallowance of “artificial/bogus loss” alleged to have been claimed by assessee through the process of CCM. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but did not get any success. The CIT(A) dismissed assessee’s appeal by passing following order: “On perusal of the above, it is seen that the Gr. No. 5 are of general in nature

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

II (in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)], Indore dated 15.1.2018 which is arising out of the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the ‘Act’) dated 22.03.2013 framed by JCIT, Range-3, Indore. 2. Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S RANA & JOSHI BUILDTECH P LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pr. Cit-1 Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (Formerly Known As M/S Rana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) Vs. 218 Civil Lines, Below Dainik Bhaskar Office Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcr9858P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .09.2024

ii) Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 3-10-2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 1-3-2022. iii. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15-3-2020 till 28-2- 2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period

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

143(3) of the Act accepting the returned income, without any variation and without much discussion in the assessment order. 5. The three basic issues for which the case was selected for scrutiny where as follows: “i. Claim of Any Other Amount Allowable as Deduction in Schedule BP ii. Exemption for Undertakings in FTZ/SEZ (Section 10A, 10AA) iii. Disallowance