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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAJEEV AJMERA, INDORE

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

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-3(1) Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Co No.23/Ind/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.51/Ind/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Dcit-3(1) Indore Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Assessee By Shri Mahendra Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2022 आदेश/ O R D E R

section 14A was clearly applicable on assessee's investment in shares and mutual fund wherefrom income was exempt.” Page 2 of 17 Shri Rajeev Ajmera ITA No.51/Ind/2018& CO.No.23/Ind/2018 Assessment year 2010-11 Ground No. 1: 5. In this Ground, the issue involved is the deduction of commission- expenditure of Rs. 1,74,50,000/- claimed by the assessee

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

215 ITR 81] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Mr. Abaraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [163 ITR 129] interpreting prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The High Court held, In this context, it must

M/S. S.R. FERRO ALLOYS,JHABUA vs. THE PCIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

disallowance of depreciation by the AO in the scrutiny assessment of the lender company would not epso facto lead to the conclusion that the transactions of loan between the lender company and assesse is not genuine. The Pr. CIT has not even verified the balance sheet and bank account statement of the lender company to come to prima facie conclusion

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

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

Section 37(1) of the Act. 3. Development charges whether received or not would accrue to the assessee at the rate of Rs.170/- per Sq. Feet at par with 22 buyers of the plots and thus, the development charges would not be a charge on the assessee's profit as the same would be commensurately recoverable from the buyers

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

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

Section 37(1) of the Act. 3. Development charges whether received or not would accrue to the assessee at the rate of Rs.170/- per Sq. Feet at par with 22 buyers of the plots and thus, the development charges would not be a charge on the assessee's profit as the same would be commensurately recoverable from the buyers

M/S. BHATIA GLOBAL TRADING LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibhatia Global Trading Ltd. Dcit 1(1) Through Official Liquidator Indore Old Cia Building, 1St Floor Vs. Opp. G.P.O. Residency Area, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacb6751 C Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .07.2023

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act can be made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income), as the revenue has not been accepted the said decision and has preferred an SLP against the said decision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in view of the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2022 to Section

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

SIDDHLAXMI SAKH SAHAKARITA MY,,INDORE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) W,INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowing the deduction under sub- clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 80P of the Act is under challenged. 3. We have heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. 4. The assessee is a credit co-operative society providing credit facilities to its members. The interest income from the surplus invested in short

KAMAL NAYAN AGRAWAL,BETUL vs. THE DCIT, ITARSI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Kamal Nayan Agrawal, Dcit, 218, Sadguru Niketan

section 154(7) and there would be no illegality. Therefore, to ascertain correct state of affairs, we confronted the Ld. AR about the details of intimation dated 10.04.2014 but the Ld. AR could not spell out satisfactorily. Hence, in absence of clear details coming before us, we are not satisfied with the claim projected by assessee in this ground; resultantly

SHRI GOVIND DAS MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

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

215 ITR 81 (Guj). CIT vs. Sohana Woollen Mills 296 ITR 238 (P& H). It is therefore prayed your honour that the proceedings may please be dropped. 23. The submissions made by the assessee could not satisfy the Ld. PCIT and he relied on the information received from Director, Investigation, Kolkatta treating Kappac Pharma Ltd as a penny stock

M/S. CHARITRA GOLD PVT. LTD.,RATLAM vs. THE PR. CIT, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

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

215 ITR 81 (Guj). CIT vs. Sohana Woollen Mills 296 ITR 238 (P& H). It is therefore prayed your honour that the proceedings may please be dropped. 23. The submissions made by the assessee could not satisfy the Ld. PCIT and he relied on the information received from Director, Investigation, Kolkatta treating Kappac Pharma Ltd as a penny stock

SHRI ADITYA MUNDRA,DEWAS vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

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

215 ITR 81 (Guj). CIT vs. Sohana Woollen Mills 296 ITR 238 (P& H). It is therefore prayed your honour that the proceedings may please be dropped. 23. The submissions made by the assessee could not satisfy the Ld. PCIT and he relied on the information received from Director, Investigation, Kolkatta treating Kappac Pharma Ltd as a penny stock

SHRI MANISH MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

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

215 ITR 81 (Guj). CIT vs. Sohana Woollen Mills 296 ITR 238 (P& H). It is therefore prayed your honour that the proceedings may please be dropped. 23. The submissions made by the assessee could not satisfy the Ld. PCIT and he relied on the information received from Director, Investigation, Kolkatta treating Kappac Pharma Ltd as a penny stock

SHRI MANOJ MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

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

215 ITR 81 (Guj). CIT vs. Sohana Woollen Mills 296 ITR 238 (P& H). It is therefore prayed your honour that the proceedings may please be dropped. 23. The submissions made by the assessee could not satisfy the Ld. PCIT and he relied on the information received from Director, Investigation, Kolkatta treating Kappac Pharma Ltd as a penny stock

DHIRENDRA INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,NEEMUCH vs. PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

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

215 ITR 81 (Guj). CIT vs. Sohana Woollen Mills 296 ITR 238 (P& H). It is therefore prayed your honour that the proceedings may please be dropped. 23. The submissions made by the assessee could not satisfy the Ld. PCIT and he relied on the information received from Director, Investigation, Kolkatta treating Kappac Pharma Ltd as a penny stock

M/S. RAJDHANI LAND & HOUSING CORPORATION,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed and

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2007-08 M/S Rajdhani Land & Pr. Cit-1, Housing Corporation, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aahfr4618J Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal & Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ars Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.08.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’ For Short) By Ld. Pr. Cit-1 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 20.09.2019. Rajdhani Land & Housing

disallowed. The matter travelled before the Hon'ble Bench vide ITA No. 558/lnd/2010 and the order was pronounced on 25.04.2012. Hon'ble Bench set aside the matter to the file of Ld. AO giving the following two directions - [PB 04-08, 26-32] a. to make enquiry with regards to the infrastructure facilities developed by the assessee in terms

SMT. SARITA CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

215 2006-07 154,78,476 5,43,299 1,41,715 7,44,200 16. Ld. CIT(A) have partial relief by sustaining the disallowance to 10% in the following manner:- Purchases (Rs.) Freight& Cartage Wages & Salary Salary Expenses (Rs.) (Rs.) eRs.) AY. Total Disallow- Total Disallow- Total Disallow- Total Disallow- ance Expenses ance ance Expenses ance Expenses Expenses