M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowing an expense of Rs.6,07,00,658/- under Section 14A of the act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. 6. On the reacts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld AO has erred in withdrawing the interest under section 234B of the Act. 7. on the facts and circumstances or the case

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", "234B", "234C", "234D

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", "234B", "234C", "234D

THE DCIT CIRCLE 5(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S L N MALVIYA INFRA PROJECTS P LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit, Circle 5(1) M/S. L.N. Malviya Infra Projects Bhopal Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.29, F/F Sector, Dwarka Vs. New Delhi

section 37(1) of the Act. Hence, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the CIT(A) qua this issue of disallowance of interest on GST. 5. Ground no.2 is regarding disallowance of interest on TDS. Ld. DR has submitted that the CIT(A) has committed an error in considering the interest

INDORE SAHAKARI DUGDH SANGH MARYADIT,DAIRY COMPOUND, MANGLIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

disallowing, allowable Deduction of Interest Income validly Claimed for Rs. 22867733/- by incorrectly interpreting provision of Section 80P (2) (d) and 80P(4). 2. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in initiating penalty provisions u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act 1961 whereas the Appellant had not under reported Income. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in levy

INDORE SAHAKARI DUGDH SANGH MARYADIT,DAIRY COMPOUND, MANGLIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

disallowing, allowable Deduction of Interest Income validly Claimed for Rs. 22867733/- by incorrectly interpreting provision of Section 80P (2) (d) and 80P(4). 2. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in initiating penalty provisions u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act 1961 whereas the Appellant had not under reported Income. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in levy

ADITI ENTERPRISES P LTD,INDORE vs. THE ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Aditi Enterprises Private Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -2, बनाम/ 264, Indore. Shreenagar Extension, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aacca5139R Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain & Vibha Tiwari, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

234D at Rs. 4,39,131/- 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case- records perused. Page 2 of 10 Aditi Enterprises Private Ltd., Indore ITA No.434/Ind/2022 – AY 2015-16 3. Brief facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of trading and commission agent