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

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 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 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

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

MORNI SAREES PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed”

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

220/-. The amount of Rs.9,59,000/- is disallowed as bonus u/s 36 of the Act. Tax payable is shown as Rs.3,71,660/-. Therefore there was a demand u/s 143(1) intimation dated 24.08.2022 bearing Ack.No. 966337080240122 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned intimation order u/s 143(1)” for the sake of brevity. The assessee in turn

M/S. SURESH ALUMINIUM,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHOPAL

In the result Ground No.1 & 2 raised by the

Bench: Shri Manish Boradm/S Suresh Aluminium, Acit Central Circle-1, 10, Jyoti Shoping Compex, Bhopal Zone-I, Vs. Mp Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abefs0206M Assessee By S/Shri Yash Kukreja & H. Chimnani, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.08.2024 O R D E R

disallowance of Rs.3912/- Ld. A.O assessed the income at Rs.33,94,220/- and applied the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act so as to calculate the tax on surrendered income at Rs.52,25,297/-. 3.1 Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and made detailed submission referring to plethora of decisions claiming that the surrendered income is purely

SHRI DWARKA PRASAD TAYAL ,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO , KHARGON

In the result appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2011-12

220 4,45,282 2.1 2.2 % of Net profit 1.42% 0.47% 3.1 Consolidated turnover 10,63,67,976 Consolidated Net profit 0.57% 3.2 4.4.5] On perusal of both the table Le. as provided in paras 4.4.3 & 4.4.4, it is evident that of consolidated profit as declared by the appellant on the amount of disclosed or undisclosed turnover in the year

THE ITO , SENDHWA vs. SHRI DWARKA PRASAD TAYAL , SENDHWA

In the result appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2011-12

220 4,45,282 2.1 2.2 % of Net profit 1.42% 0.47% 3.1 Consolidated turnover 10,63,67,976 Consolidated Net profit 0.57% 3.2 4.4.5] On perusal of both the table Le. as provided in paras 4.4.3 & 4.4.4, it is evident that of consolidated profit as declared by the appellant on the amount of disclosed or undisclosed turnover in the year

PRITESH JAIN HUF,INDORE vs. ITO 4 (2), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

220/- made by the AO by disallowing the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) in respect of the long term capital gains of the appellant. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the claim of the appellant being proper and legal is prayed to be now allowed. 2.That on the facts