HONOURABLE PACKAGING P LTD ,DHAR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of The Income Tax Return & Can It Be Disallowed In The 143(1).

section 2 I.TA No. 348/IND/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No Honourable packaging P. Ltd. vs. DCIT 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2017-18. 2. The solitary issue involved in this appeal is late payment of PF and ESIC contribution by the assessee but deposited before

MILLION TRADERS BHOPAL P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance is made by the CPC while processing the return u/s 143(1) therefore, the assessee had no occasion to produce the supporting evidence to show that the TCS was collected by the Excise Department in respect of the purchase made and accounted by the assessee. Page 4 of 24 ITA No.124/Ind/2023 & ITANo.35/Ind/2023 Million Trader Bhopal Page

MILLION TRADERS BHOPAL P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance is made by the CPC while processing the return u/s 143(1) therefore, the assessee had no occasion to produce the supporting evidence to show that the TCS was collected by the Excise Department in respect of the purchase made and accounted by the assessee. Page 4 of 24 ITA No.124/Ind/2023 & ITANo.35/Ind/2023 Million Trader Bhopal Page

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE vs. COMMANDER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of assessee are dismissed

disallowance of claim of depreciation on goodwill as\na result of amalgamation/merger should not be made. The assessee filed its reply dated 30.03.2022. The AO noted that the assessee has claimed depreciation @25% of intangible asset of Rs.29,21,05,207/- shown as goodwill representing the payment over and above the net book value of assets of four amalgamating companies

PRATIBHA JAIN,INDORE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU, CPC, BENGALURU

Appeal is dismissed in limine

disallowed the deduction under section 80IB of the Act for sole reason\nthat the audit report in Form-10CCB was not filed along with the ITR and was\nonly filed after the receipt of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. There\nis no question on the eligibility of the claim of deduction under section 80IB of\nthe

RNG CONSTRUCTION CO,INDRA NAGAR vs. DCIT-CPC, CPC-BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshirng Construction Co. Dcit-Cpc बनाम/ 14, Sector-A, Vs. Indira Nagar, Mandideep (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqfr9084B Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025

disallowance on account of Service Tax is required to be confirmed, the same should be allowed in subsequent years being Rs. 5,97,097/- in AY 2019-20 and Rs. 60,42,613/- in Page 3 of 9 RNG Construction Co. ITA No.162/Ind/2024- AY:2018-19 AY 2021-22 on the basis of payments, as these were never claimed

MORNI SAREES PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance was set aside.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "253", "143(1)", "154", "36(1)(ii)", "43B", "246A", "234B", "234C" ], "issues": "Whether

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

154/- proposed by assessee. Here, the assessee's grievance is\nsuch that the AO has not given the benefit of payments made below the\nthreshold limit of section 194H.\n18. During hearing before us, Ld. AR for assessee made oral submissions\nqua these issues. Subsequently after hearing, as per liberty granted by the\nBench, Ld. AR filed a Written-Submission

PURNIMA SINGH,RATLAM vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC - BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

disallowed the deduction under section 80IB of the Act for\nsole reason that the audit report in Form-10CCB was not filed along\nwith the ITR and was only filed after the receipt of intimation under\nsection 143(1) of the Act. There is no question on the eligibility of the claim\nof deduction under section 80IB

JEHAN NUMA PALACE HOTEL PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT/ACIT,5(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

disallowed the deduction under section 80IB of the Act for\nsole reason that the audit report in Form-10CCB was not filed along\nwith the ITR and was only filed after the receipt of intimation under\nsection 143(1) of the Act. There is no question on the eligibility of the claim\nof deduction under section 80IB

SHIVGANGA DRILLERS P LTD,INDORE vs. CPC , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1) itself without appreciating the fact that on first stage appellant has taken the remedy of filing application u/s 154 which is legal and as per the provision of Income Tax Act. Thus the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre is illegal and liable to be set aside to decide on merits. 3. That on the facts

M/S BEYOND KEY SYSTEMS P LTD,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1(1) , INDORE

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Beyond Key Systems Dcit/Acit-Circle,1(1) Private Ltd. Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaccb 7622 G Assessee By Shri Manish Dafaria, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.01.2023

154. Apart therefrom, the provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(i) indicate that the intimation sent under Section 143(1)(a) shall be without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-section (2). The Legislature, therefore, intended that, where the summary procedure under Sub-section (1) has been adopted, there should be scope available for the Revenue, either suo motu

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

disallowance. Therefore, the assessee filed a rectification application under section 154 of the Act, however, after lapse of considerable time, rectification petition was not disposed of by the Department, and ultimately, the assessee-company filed statutory appeal under section 246(1

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

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. Acit Central-1 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent /Revenue) Pan: Aaccd 6124 B Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Shri Yash Kukreja, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2022

disallowed the above claim made by the appellant stating that the activity of the appellant cannot be termed as manufacture or production as required by the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) and 32AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by relying heavily upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NC Budhraja reported

BHAGWAT PRASAD MALVIYA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2014-15 Bhagwat Prasad Malviya Ito -3(1) 28, Crp Phatak Road Bhopal बनाम/ Bairagarh, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afbpm8998M Assessee By Shri N.D. Patwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.12.2025

154 is found to be justified. This ground is dismissed. 9.10 Ground 3 relates to that the AO erred in disallowing exemption of Rs. 1,12,73,663 u/s 54B and 54F without proper justification. 9.11 This ground lacks merit in view of the factual analysis done by the AO. The breakup of disallowance is clearly justified as follows: Section

THE ITO-1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S FRIENDS ASSOCIATES, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniito-1(1) M/S Friends Associates Bhopal Shop No.32, G.T.B. Complex New Market, Vs. Bhopal

1,00,82,950/- disallowed by the A.O.” 3. Ld. DR has submitted that initially the assessment was reopened vide notice u/s 148 issued on 22.03.2019 and the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w. section 148 was completed on 19.12.2019. Subsequently, the AO initiated the proceedings u/s 154

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

disallow the said claim without any new facts or record is not permissible being change of opinion. Hence, we hold that the reopening of the assessment is not valid and the same is quashed. Since the reopening of the assessment is quashed therefore, the issues raised by the assessee on merits becomes infructuous. 6. For A.Y.2009-10 the assessee has raised

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

disallow the said claim without any new facts or record is not permissible being change of opinion. Hence, we hold that the reopening of the assessment is not valid and the same is quashed. Since the reopening of the assessment is quashed therefore, the issues raised by the assessee on merits becomes infructuous. 6. For A.Y.2009-10 the assessee has raised