S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

section 36(1)(va) came into statute. Therefore, Ld. DR claimed that the disallowance made by AO deserves to be upheld and CIT(A)’s action deserves to be reversed. Page 18 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

section 36(1)(va) came into statute. Therefore, Ld. DR claimed that the disallowance made by AO deserves to be upheld and CIT(A)’s action deserves to be reversed. Page 18 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

section 36(1)(va) came into statute. Therefore, Ld. DR claimed that the disallowance made by AO deserves to be upheld and CIT(A)’s action deserves to be reversed. Page 18 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

section 36(1)(va) came into statute. Therefore, Ld. DR claimed that the disallowance made by AO deserves to be upheld and CIT(A)’s action deserves to be reversed. Page 18 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

section 36(1)(va) came into statute. Therefore, Ld. DR claimed that the disallowance made by AO deserves to be upheld and CIT(A)’s action deserves to be reversed. Page 18 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

section 36(1)(va) came into statute. Therefore, Ld. DR claimed that the disallowance made by AO deserves to be upheld and CIT(A)’s action deserves to be reversed. Page 18 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23

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

In the result, appeal for A

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

23,30,000 Fund & Finance Ltd. Total 1,55,30,000 9.2 These payments of details are duly reflected in the respective ledger accounts in the books of the assesse. Further at page 12 to 27 of the paper book the said record was also produced by the assessee during the penalty proceedings. Once the assessee has brought on record

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

23,30,000 Fund & Finance Ltd. Total 1,55,30,000 9.2 These payments of details are duly reflected in the respective ledger accounts in the books of the assesse. Further at page 12 to 27 of the paper book the said record was also produced by the assessee during the penalty proceedings. Once the assessee has brought on record

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

In the result, appeal for A

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

23,30,000 Fund & Finance Ltd. Total 1,55,30,000 9.2 These payments of details are duly reflected in the respective ledger accounts in the books of the assesse. Further at page 12 to 27 of the paper book the said record was also produced by the assessee during the penalty proceedings. Once the assessee has brought on record

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.

23,920/- in respect of employee’s contribution towards provident fund and ₹ 35,188/- in respect of ESIC, and the total disallowance was ₹ 5,59,108/-. In passing the order, the AO did not allow the claim under section 36(1)(va

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

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

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

ANDRITZ HYDRO P LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing

VA Tech Escher Wyss Flovel Limited, Prithla. Subsequently, with effect from 1 January 2009, the Prithla unit merged into Mandideep Unit. Later on, the name of the amalgamated Company was changed to Andritz Hydro Private Limited. Prior to the merger, both the companies were creating provisions for warranty. The tax treatment for such provision was as follows: Tax treatment

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

23,58,560/- and Preliminary expenses of Rs. 1,36,065/-. In this regard, Ld. AR has made a simple submission that the books of account of assessee were produced before AO and the same were subjected to thorough examination. Ld. AR submitted that even if the AO does not mention each and every item of enquiry in the assessment

M/S. GREATER KAILASH HOSPITAL (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, being not maintainable is

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14

23,104 viz., addition of Rs.6,22,252/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act and Rs.7,00,852/- u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s 43B of the Act. From the said affidavit, the ld. AR also submitted that the assessee company as per Form No.35, challenged the addition of Rs.7,00,852/- made to the total income of the assessee

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

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