ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

23,91,726/- minus Rs.14,11.64,593/-) out of the total cost of purchase which include material, labour, development and so many other expenses as per the details of work in progress given on page no 48 Therefore, the interest incurred by the assessee during the year was not claimed as expenditure bud was debited to work in progress

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

23,91,726/- minus Rs.14,11.64,593/-) out of the total cost of purchase which include material, labour, development and so many other expenses as per the details of work in progress given on page no 48 Therefore, the interest incurred by the assessee during the year was not claimed as expenditure bud was debited to work in progress

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

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts - the employer's liability is to be paid

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

In the result, appeal for A

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

2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts - the employer's liability is to be paid

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

In the result, appeal for A

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

2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts - the employer's liability is to be paid

CUMMINS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P) LTD.,DEWAS vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicommins Technologies India Acit, Circle -1(1) Private Limited Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area No.2, A.B. Road, M.P. (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabct2018B Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved & Pinkesh Vakharia Ars Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

23,00,000/- 3.1 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO / T * PO pursuant to the directions of Hon'ble DRP, has Page 2 of 22 Cummins Technologies India P. ltd. Page 3 of 22 erred in rejecting the benchmarking adopted by the Appellant for benchmarking royalty paid or payable for manufacture

SOM DISTILLERIES PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are partly allowed for

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

23,33,352/- to P&L A/c and claimed deduction as business expenditure u/s 37(1). However, while framing assessment, the AO did not accept assessee’s claim and made Page 3 of 9 Som Distilleries Private Limited I.T.A. Nos. 269 & 270/Ind/2023 – AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14 disallowance. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) considered assessee’s submission and deleted

SOM DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are partly allowed for

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

23,33,352/- to P&L A/c and claimed deduction as business expenditure u/s 37(1). However, while framing assessment, the AO did not accept assessee’s claim and made Page 3 of 9 Som Distilleries Private Limited I.T.A. Nos. 269 & 270/Ind/2023 – AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14 disallowance. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) considered assessee’s submission and deleted

NEW VISION SOFTEOCOM & CONSULTABCY P LTD ,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 3(1) , BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Last Date Of Filing The Income Tax Return U/S 139(1) Of The Act As Required By Section 43B(B) For Allowability Of Deduction On Actual Payment Basis.

disallowance was ₹ 5,59,108/-. In passing the order, the AO did not allow the claim under section 36(1)(va) of the Act of ₹ 5,23,920/- being the employee’s contribution under EPF and ₹ 35,188/- on account of ESIC which was paid beyond the period prescribed under the respective Acts. 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed

M/S TESLA TRANSFORMERS (INDIA) LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 3(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Tesla Transformers Acit 3(1) (India) Ltd. Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aagct 8705 J Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.03.2023

disallowance of delayed payment on account of ESI/PF. 7. The assessee has claimed that the payments towards Employees Contribution were made before due date filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. However, it is not disputed that there was a delay in payment as per respective acts of ESI/PF. This fact is recorded

SHARAD AGARWAL,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITO),, SEHORE

Appeal is allowed

23,06,614 X 4,12,061 / 1,48,39,937). The Ld. AR for assessee at\nfirst submitted that the cash credit limit account is utilised by assessee for\nall transactions of business wherein all borrowed funds as well as own\nfunds of assessee are routed and therefore the funds of assessee are mixed\nup. Then, Ld. AR carried

DANISH HEALTH CARE P LTD ,UJJAIN vs. PR CIT -1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Danish Health Care Pr. Cit-1, Private Limited, Indore बनाम/ 76/27, Maxi Road, Industrial Area, Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaecd5554F Assessee By Ms.Ruchira Negi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2023

section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, if in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner - (a) The order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) The order

THE ACIT 3(2), INDORE vs. M/S. SIMRAN DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ito-3(2), M/S. Simran Developers Indore 402, Mark Building, बनाम/ Saket Square, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Ackfs 1946 B Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 16.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

23,000/- 1,230/- Zakir Khan 80,98,538/- 80,985/- Others 64,08,762/- 64,087/- Total 1,46,30,300/- 4.1.2 Therefore, the AO is not justified in making disallowance of 10% out of Rs.1,46,30,300/- As a result out of the total addition of Rs.23,26,323, an addition

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

Section 2(x) of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 defines 'package as 'abox, bottle, casket, tin-barrel, case, receptacle, sack, bag, wrapper or other thing in which an article of food is placed or packed Section 2(zh) of Food safety and Standards Act, 2006 defines "package" as 'a pre-packed box, bottle, casket, tin, barrel, case, pouch

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

Section 2(x) of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 defines 'package as 'abox, bottle, casket, tin-barrel, case, receptacle, sack, bag, wrapper or other thing in which an article of food is placed or packed Section 2(zh) of Food safety and Standards Act, 2006 defines "package" as 'a pre-packed box, bottle, casket, tin, barrel, case, pouch