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

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

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

220 ITR167 MP High Court) while setting aside the order of ITAT held that ITO had not examined the issue of allowability of deduction us 80HH and 80J in the light of conditions laid down for grant of relief under said sections. Further, it was observed by the Hon'ble court that the Tribunal instead of approaching the matter

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance of 5% by making general remarks cannot be said to be justified as has been rightly pointed out by the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting addition without any ambiguity so as to warrant interference. This ground of appeal is, therefore, found to be devoid of any merit and thus dismissed. 18. Ground No.3: Deletion of addition of Rs.5

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance of 5% by making general remarks cannot be said to be justified as has been rightly pointed out by the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting addition without any ambiguity so as to warrant interference. This ground of appeal is, therefore, found to be devoid of any merit and thus dismissed. 18. Ground No.3: Deletion of addition of Rs.5

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance of 5% by making general remarks cannot be said to be justified as has been rightly pointed out by the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting addition without any ambiguity so as to warrant interference. This ground of appeal is, therefore, found to be devoid of any merit and thus dismissed. 18. Ground No.3: Deletion of addition of Rs.5

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

section 154 of the I.T. Act 1961, the4 same is being rectified accordingly.” 15. Thus, it is clear that there were mistake in computing surcharge and education cess consequently the interest u/s 234A, 234B and 220(2) were levied incorrectly. The last correction proposed by the AO in the order u/s 154 in respect of the interest u/s 220(2

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

section 154 of the I.T. Act 1961, the4 same is being rectified accordingly.” 15. Thus, it is clear that there were mistake in computing surcharge and education cess consequently the interest u/s 234A, 234B and 220(2) were levied incorrectly. The last correction proposed by the AO in the order u/s 154 in respect of the interest u/s 220(2

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT-1 (1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

section 154 of the I.T. Act 1961, the4 same is being rectified accordingly.” 15. Thus, it is clear that there were mistake in computing surcharge and education cess consequently the interest u/s 234A, 234B and 220(2) were levied incorrectly. The last correction proposed by the AO in the order u/s 154 in respect of the interest u/s 220(2

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

section 154 of the I.T. Act 1961, the4 same is being rectified accordingly.” 15. Thus, it is clear that there were mistake in computing surcharge and education cess consequently the interest u/s 234A, 234B and 220(2) were levied incorrectly. The last correction proposed by the AO in the order u/s 154 in respect of the interest u/s 220(2

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

section 154 of the I.T. Act 1961, the4 same is being rectified accordingly.” 15. Thus, it is clear that there were mistake in computing surcharge and education cess consequently the interest u/s 234A, 234B and 220(2) were levied incorrectly. The last correction proposed by the AO in the order u/s 154 in respect of the interest u/s 220(2

M/S RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIK VISHWAVIDHALYA,HOSANGABAD vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 324 & 325/Ind/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vs. Dcit, Vishwavidyalaya, Cpc, Bhopal Bangaluru

2. Predominant object of educating people should not be taken over by profit making notice. 3. There is a difference between "making a surplus" and running the institution for 'profit'. The former should not be mistook for later. 4. If the surplus arises incidentally after meeting the expenditure, it will not cease to be one existing solely for educational purpose

M/S RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIK VISHWAVIDHALYA,HOSANGABAD vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 324 & 325/Ind/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vs. Dcit, Vishwavidyalaya, Cpc, Bhopal Bangaluru

2. Predominant object of educating people should not be taken over by profit making notice. 3. There is a difference between "making a surplus" and running the institution for 'profit'. The former should not be mistook for later. 4. If the surplus arises incidentally after meeting the expenditure, it will not cease to be one existing solely for educational purpose

SHRI JAGDISH KUMAR GULIA,BHOPAL vs. THRE ASSTT.DIRECTORE OF INCOME TAX ,CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

220/-. The AO processed assessee’s return through intimation dated 29.04.2019 u/s 143(1) determining total income at Rs. 21,72,100/-, after making an upward adjustment of Rs. 10,19,880/- u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) on account of disallowance of employee’s contribution received by assessee towards Provident Fund/Employees State Insurance Fund (PF/ESI

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

section 68 does not permit any addition qua the opening balances which are carried forward from earlier year and not accepted during the year. Ld. CIT(A) has rightly taken into account the decision of (i) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Usha Stud Farms (301 ITR 384), (ii) Shri Vardhman Overseas Page

ACIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

Appeal are ALLOWED”

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit 1(1), Bridgestone India Private Indore Limited, Plot No. A-43, बनाम/ Phase Ii, M.I.D.C Chakan, Vs. S.O Chakan, Pune (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabcb2304E Assessee By Shri Kaustubh Fadnis & Manoj Fadnis, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2025

disallowance made under section 144 made by AO without appreciating the facts and evidences mentioned in the assessment order by the ΛΟ”. 2. The background facts leading to this appeal are such that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of tyres and allied products. For AY 2013-14, the assessee filed original return declaring a loss

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

220 days. 6. Similar averments have been made by the assessee in para 2 to 4 of the affidavit. The assessee has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. As reported

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available