M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance. 36. Now coming to the appeals filed in penalty proceedings filed by the assessee, we take up appeal in ITA No.752/Ind/2016 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- imposed

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance. 36. Now coming to the appeals filed in penalty proceedings filed by the assessee, we take up appeal in ITA No.752/Ind/2016 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- imposed

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance. 36. Now coming to the appeals filed in penalty proceedings filed by the assessee, we take up appeal in ITA No.752/Ind/2016 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- imposed

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance. 36. Now coming to the appeals filed in penalty proceedings filed by the assessee, we take up appeal in ITA No.752/Ind/2016 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- imposed

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT- RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance. 36. Now coming to the appeals filed in penalty proceedings filed by the assessee, we take up appeal in ITA No.752/Ind/2016 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- imposed

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PVT.LTD.,INDORE vs. THE JCIT, R-5 (PRESENT AO: DCIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance. 36. Now coming to the appeals filed in penalty proceedings filed by the assessee, we take up appeal in ITA No.752/Ind/2016 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- imposed

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

disallowance made u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act by the lower authorities was deleted and assessee’s claim u/s 80IB(10) of the Act was allowed by this Tribunal after examining the facts of the case and also following the settled judicial pronouncements. Relevant extract of the order of this Tribunal are reproduced below: 12. We have heard both

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

disallowance made u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act by the lower authorities was deleted and assessee’s claim u/s 80IB(10) of the Act was allowed by this Tribunal after examining the facts of the case and also following the settled judicial pronouncements. Relevant extract of the order of this Tribunal are reproduced below: 12. We have heard both

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

section 263 of the Act and setting aside the assessment to the file of the assessing officer. 5. Ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the action of the Ld. Pr. CIT is contrary to the records and the settled position of law. He submitted that Ld. assessing officer had made a requisite enquiry. In this regard, he took

M/S SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEEMUCH vs. THE DCIT, RATLAM

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Disallowance of Rs.55,44,563/- was added to the total income of the assessee under Section 80IA of the Act. In appeal the same was confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, the instant appeal before us. 7. The case of the assessee is this that the assessee is engaged in the development of infrastructure facilities in the shape

M/S SHRI BALAJI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ,NEEMUCH vs. DCIT, RATLAM

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Disallowance of Rs.55,44,563/- was added to the total income of the assessee under Section 80IA of the Act. In appeal the same was confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, the instant appeal before us. 7. The case of the assessee is this that the assessee is engaged in the development of infrastructure facilities in the shape

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

239 ITR 435 (Madras High Court): The Hon’ble High Court held thus: “8. The liability for deduction of tax arises by reason of the provisions of the Act. Under Section 201, the consequence of failure to comply with the same renders that person liable to be deemed as an assessee in default with all the consequences attached thereto

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 VARAD MEHTA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Shri Varad Mehta, Dcit 1(1), B-4/301, Paras City, Vs. Bhopal Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aflpm6733Q Revenue By Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Girish Agrawal,Ca Date Of Hearing 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2018 O R D E R

disallowed in returned income cannot be held to be retrospective in operation - Held, yes _ Whether fiction created under sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C by itself, cannot be extended to penalty proceedings to raise a presumption about concealment of such income - Held, yes - Whether on a finding that return of income which is less than 80 per cent

INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borada.Y. 2009-10

239/- was offered as income in P & L account. This treatment of charging loss in FY 2008-09 and offering the excess provision in FY 2009-10 was in accordance with the Accounting Standard prescribed by ICAI which are mandatory in nature under Companies Act, 1956. However, the Revenue Authorities disallowed/confirmed the amount stating that the loss was not certain

M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT -CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 92B of the Income-tax Act is amended retrospectively w.e.f. 01.04.2002, hence ALP of corporate guarantee has to be determined, as it falls within scope & ambit of international transactions and they directed to adopt the corporate guarantee rate of 0.53%, which is considered as arm’s length rate in many decisions of tribunals. Respectfully following the same, an amount

M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT RANGE 1(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 92B of the Income-tax Act is amended retrospectively w.e.f. 01.04.2002, hence ALP of corporate guarantee has to be determined, as it falls within scope & ambit of international transactions and they directed to adopt the corporate guarantee rate of 0.53%, which is considered as arm’s length rate in many decisions of tribunals. Respectfully following the same, an amount

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P LTD., INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 92B of the Income-tax Act is amended retrospectively w.e.f. 01.04.2002, hence ALP of corporate guarantee has to be determined, as it falls within scope & ambit of international transactions and they directed to adopt the corporate guarantee rate of 0.53%, which is considered as arm’s length rate in many decisions of tribunals. Respectfully following the same, an amount