M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance. 36. Now coming to the appeals filed in penalty proceedings filed by the assessee, we take up appeal in ITA No.752/Ind/2016 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- imposed

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT- RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance. 36. Now coming to the appeals filed in penalty proceedings filed by the assessee, we take up appeal in ITA No.752/Ind/2016 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- imposed

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance. 36. Now coming to the appeals filed in penalty proceedings filed by the assessee, we take up appeal in ITA No.752/Ind/2016 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- imposed

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance. 36. Now coming to the appeals filed in penalty proceedings filed by the assessee, we take up appeal in ITA No.752/Ind/2016 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- imposed

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance. 36. Now coming to the appeals filed in penalty proceedings filed by the assessee, we take up appeal in ITA No.752/Ind/2016 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- imposed

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PVT.LTD.,INDORE vs. THE JCIT, R-5 (PRESENT AO: DCIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance. 36. Now coming to the appeals filed in penalty proceedings filed by the assessee, we take up appeal in ITA No.752/Ind/2016 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- imposed

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

disallowing said payments under section 40A (3)- Whether on facts, impugned revisional order did not require any interference- Held, yes [Para-16] [ In favour of revenue] 4.0 Therefore, in view of the above discussion I am of the considered opinion that the order dated: 06.01.2016 for A.Y. 2013-14 is erroneous in so far as it is also prejudicial

THE ACIT, - 4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. YASH TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15 Pan : Aaacy1868M

156/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and succeeded. 3. Now aggrieved revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising following grounds of appeal; On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A):- 1.Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in summarily deleting

MP STATE CO-OPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal for A

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

disallowed the claim of Page 4 of 16 ITANo.114 & 115/Ind/2024 M.P. State Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of the interest income received by the assessee on the fixed deposit made with Bhopal Co-operative Central Bank on the ground that the only interest or dividend received on the investment made

MP STATE COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ACIT BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal for A

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

disallowed the claim of Page 4 of 16 ITANo.114 & 115/Ind/2024 M.P. State Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of the interest income received by the assessee on the fixed deposit made with Bhopal Co-operative Central Bank on the ground that the only interest or dividend received on the investment made

SHRI MAYUR BANSAL,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the revenue in IT(SS)ANo

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

section 156 is statutorily valid and cannot be invalidated. Without causing any prejudice to the above 2. BECAUSE the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of cash found during the course of search on 22.02.2018 both on facts and in law. 3. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary

THE ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. TRAPTI TRADING & INVESTMENT PVT.LTD., NAGDA

In the result, against total disallowance of Rs

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S. Trapti Trading & Income Tax-2(1), Vs. Investment Pvt. Ltd, Ujjain Po Birlagram, Nagda Distt. Ujjain (M.P) (Revenue) (Respondent ) Pan Aabct6006B Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit Assessee By S/Shri Ronak Doshi & Rajiv Garg, Ars Date Of Hearing 11.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2019 O R D E R

Section 14A of the Act. We find that Ld. CIT(A) deleted the impugned disallowance of Rs.2,23,40,745/- u/s 14A of the Act observing as follows; “Ground No.1, 2, 3, 4 & 5:-Through these grounds of appeal the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs.2,23,40,745/-on account of disallowance

THE ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. TURQUISE INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT.LTD., NAGDA

In the result, against total disallowance of Rs

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

section 14A of the Act reference is given to the method provided in Rule 8D of the IT Rules which has following three limbs: (i) the amount of expenditure directly relating to income which does not form part of total income; (ii) Computing of disallowance of interest expenditure incurred during the year which is not directly attributable to any particular

KAMAL SHADIJA,INDORE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX EPARTMENT, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2020-21 Kamal Shadija Assessment Unit 156, Palsikar Colony, Income Tax Department बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Azsps4490H Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026

156, Palsikar Colony, Income Tax Department बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN:AZSPS4490H Assessee by Shri S.S. Deshpande, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 06.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 07.07.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income

BALAJI PHOSPHATES LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCITACIT 1(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibalaji Phosphates Limited, Dcitacit 1(1), 305, Utsav Avenue, Indore Vs. 12/5 Ushaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadcb5654R Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 O R D E R

section 154 of the Act to such apparent mistake but disposal of same was not reflected upto date of filing of first appeal due to started recovery proceeding against tax levied. Thus dismissal of appeal is illegal and bad in law. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the company the order of AddI CIT/JCIT(A) refuse to admit

THE ACIT CIRCLE,RATLAM vs. M/S. MAHALAXMI INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD., RATLAM

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

156 ITR 790 (Del) and Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Nestor Pharmaceuticals Limited (2010) 322 ITR 631 (Delhi), 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id. CIT is erred in holding "that plant & machinery was ready to put to use prior to 31.03.2002, while the assessee has shown fixed assets as capital work in progress

THE ACIT, CIRCLE, RATLAM vs. M/S. MAHALAXMI INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD., RATLAM

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

156 ITR 790 (Del) and Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Nestor Pharmaceuticals Limited (2010) 322 ITR 631 (Delhi), 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id. CIT is erred in holding "that plant & machinery was ready to put to use prior to 31.03.2002, while the assessee has shown fixed assets as capital work in progress

M/S KETI INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

disallowing the depreciation surrendered by the appellant. Demand notice u/s 156 of the Act pursuant to order u/s 153A of the Act was passed with NIL demand. The quantum order was accepted and no further appeal was preferred. Immunity from levy of penalty on undisclosed income of specified previous year is available as provided in sub-section