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

220(6) of the Act is not applicable in case of any demand confirmed in appeal. There is neither any provision in the Income Tax Act nor any Instruction of Board for stay of demand confirmed in appeal. It is also to mention that the assessee has been generating huge profits over the years and accumulated huge funds

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

6: 6.0 This ground relates to addition of interest on aforesaid unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 1265695/-. During the year under consideration, the Appellant has debited interest amounting to Rs. 12,65,695/- on the aforesaid unsecured loans after deduction of tax at source. 6.1 In view of the fact that the addition of unsecured loans has been deleted

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

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

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

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

disallowance of development expenditure by AO was for it’s being contingent in nature. But the CIT (A) has failed to adjudicate and decide whether the AO was correct in his conclusion. Para 3.13:- The CIT (A), has stated that none of the customers has admitted of having paid any amount over and above what was recorded in the books

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

disallowance of development expenditure by AO was for it’s being contingent in nature. But the CIT (A) has failed to adjudicate and decide whether the AO was correct in his conclusion. Para 3.13:- The CIT (A), has stated that none of the customers has admitted of having paid any amount over and above what was recorded in the books

THE ACIT, 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

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

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

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

M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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