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

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

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

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

JAI SINGH JADESA,INDORE vs. DCIT CPC ,BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

234A, B & C of Rs.4406, Rs.61,684 & Rs.22252 respectively. That the aforesaid interest charged is arbitrary and erroneous. 3. The assesse is an individual and e-filed the return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 31.10.2018 declaring the total income of Rs. 20,63,330/-. The said return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act at a total

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.

234A Rs. 3,987/-, 234B Rs.39,330/- & 234C Rs. 20,134/- respectively. 5. That the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has computed total income of Rs.49,31,690/- instead of Rs. 43,72,580/- returned by the Appellant. 6. That each ground is independent of and without prejudice to the other grounds raised herein

DCIT-5(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M P STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

disallowance was ad-hoc and based on estimation, and the AO did not provide specific instances of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not record satisfaction in the assessment order for AY 2012-13 for initiating penalty proceedings, unlike in subsequent years.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "271(1)(c)", "234A

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M P STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

disallowance was based on an ad-hoc/lump sum estimation, and the AO had not recorded specific satisfaction that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars. Further, the AO's observations were generalized, and no specific instances were provided. Therefore, the penalty was not imposable.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "271(1)(c)", "143(3)", "234A

SMT SMITA BHALOT ,DHAR vs. THE ADRT CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

234A of the Act even when no such interest is chargeable since assessee had filed his return of total income within due date of filing return of income under section 139(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Assessing officer grossly erred in charging interest

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

disallowance made at Rs.2048173/- therefore, be kindly deleted. 4. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned lower authorities wholly wrong and opposed to fact that the society had paid Rs.561877 to Vijay Ramani who is the member of the society and therefore, there is violation of section

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

disallowance made at Rs.2048173/- therefore, be kindly deleted. 4. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned lower authorities wholly wrong and opposed to fact that the society had paid Rs.561877 to Vijay Ramani who is the member of the society and therefore, there is violation of section

M/S DAULATARAM ENGINEERING SERVICES P.LTD,MANDIDEEP vs. THE ADIT/CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

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

234A, 234B and 234C is unlawful and, therefore, the said levy be kindly deleted.” Ground No. 1 and 2: 2. In these grounds, the assessee challenges the disallowances of Rs. 38,70,983/- (+) Rs. 51,07,903/- made by AO on account of employees’ contributions received by assessee towards Provident Fund / Employees State Insurance Fund (PF/ESI) by way of deduction

M/S AGARWAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,BHOPAL vs. DYPTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 8018(10), hence it is fully eligible for the said deduction claimed u/s.80IB(10) at Rs. 3,33,72,475 which be kindly allowed. (4) That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the eligibility of deduction claimed u/s.80IB(10) be kindly adjudicated with reference to the law prevailed on the date of approval

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S AGRAWAL CONSTRUCTION CO., BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 8018(10), hence it is fully eligible for the said deduction claimed u/s.80IB(10) at Rs. 3,33,72,475 which be kindly allowed. (4) That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the eligibility of deduction claimed u/s.80IB(10) be kindly adjudicated with reference to the law prevailed on the date of approval

SHRI HAKIMUDDIN KHAMBATI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(4) RANGE-4, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

234A of the Act. 5.The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by him. 3 Hakumuddin Khambati & Anr ITA No.288 & 410/Ind/2019 (ii) Smt. Manisha Agrawal ITA No.410/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 1.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in maintaining the addition

SMT. MANISHA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4 (3), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

234A of the Act. 5.The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by him. 3 Hakumuddin Khambati & Anr ITA No.288 & 410/Ind/2019 (ii) Smt. Manisha Agrawal ITA No.410/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 1.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in maintaining the addition

ACIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LTD., BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Som Distilleries & Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Breweries Limited, 1(1), Vs. Som House, Bhopal. 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay:2014-15 Acit (Central)-1, Som Distilleries & बनाम/ Bhopal Breweries Limited, Vs. Som House, 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

234A, 234B & 234C are unlawful and without jurisdiction hence the said levies be kindly cancelled. Ground No. 1: 5. In this ground, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of Rs. 6,27,157/- u/s 14A upheld by CIT(A) out of total disallowance of Rs. 7,02,964/- made by AO. 6. After hearing submissions of learned Representatives of both

SOM DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Som Distilleries & Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Breweries Limited, 1(1), Vs. Som House, Bhopal. 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay:2014-15 Acit (Central)-1, Som Distilleries & बनाम/ Bhopal Breweries Limited, Vs. Som House, 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

234A, 234B & 234C are unlawful and without jurisdiction hence the said levies be kindly cancelled. Ground No. 1: 5. In this ground, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of Rs. 6,27,157/- u/s 14A upheld by CIT(A) out of total disallowance of Rs. 7,02,964/- made by AO. 6. After hearing submissions of learned Representatives of both