M/S HOPE TEXTILES LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

244(A) and/or to pay compensation for delayed payment for which assessee is eligible on account of gross and unreasonable delay in granting the refund.” 4. The above ground could not be raised in the original Memo of appeal. However, this is necessary to raise this ground in the interest of justice. Hence this application. 5. It is therefore, prayed

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

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

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. SHRI SANJAY SHUKLA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Sanjay Shukla, Acit Central Circle 2, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit Central Circle 2, Shri Sanjay Shukla, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03..2022 आदेश / O R D E R

section 14A of the Income Tax, 1961 read with rule 8D. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of 21,33,556/- made by the Assessing officer on account of disallowance of various expenses. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SHRI SANJAY SHUKLA ,INDORE vs. ACIT,CENTRAL-CIRLE-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Sanjay Shukla, Acit Central Circle 2, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit Central Circle 2, Shri Sanjay Shukla, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03..2022 आदेश / O R D E R

section 14A of the Income Tax, 1961 read with rule 8D. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of 21,33,556/- made by the Assessing officer on account of disallowance of various expenses. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

244, 309/Ind/2017& 441/Ind/2018 Asstt.Years : 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14& 2014-15 DCIT/JCIT(OSD), Ward- Vs. Shri Keshav Kumar Nachani 2(1) 614, Usha Nagar Extension. Indore. Narendra Tiwari Marg Indore. PAN : AAXPN 8516 F 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S. S. Deshpande, CA Revenue by : Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

244, 309/Ind/2017& 441/Ind/2018 Asstt.Years : 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14& 2014-15 DCIT/JCIT(OSD), Ward- Vs. Shri Keshav Kumar Nachani 2(1) 614, Usha Nagar Extension. Indore. Narendra Tiwari Marg Indore. PAN : AAXPN 8516 F 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S. S. Deshpande, CA Revenue by : Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

244, 309/Ind/2017& 441/Ind/2018 Asstt.Years : 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14& 2014-15 DCIT/JCIT(OSD), Ward- Vs. Shri Keshav Kumar Nachani 2(1) 614, Usha Nagar Extension. Indore. Narendra Tiwari Marg Indore. PAN : AAXPN 8516 F 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S. S. Deshpande, CA Revenue by : Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date

THE DCIT, 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. MODERN LABORATORIES, INDORE

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ ./ ./ I.T.A. No.277 & Co.16/Ind/2014 ./ "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09

disallowance of Rs. 31,91,080 as sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) are deleted , accordingly, Ground No. 1 and 1.1 of Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed. 9. Ground No. (ii) and (iii) of Revenue relates to deleting addition of Rs. 1,33,00,000 made under section 68 of the Act and Ground no. 2 of Cross

BANSAL PATHWAYS DAMOH KATNI P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOOPAL

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshibansal Pathways Damoh Dcit-1(1), बनाम Katni Private Limited, Bhopal / 15Th Floor Bansal One, Vs. Rani Kamlapati Railway Station, Bhopal

244 (Kal.) 6. CIT vs. Bombay Samachar Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 723 (Bom.) 7. Somasundram & Bro. [1999] 238 ITR 939 (Madras) 8. Elmer Havell Electrics vs. CIT [2005] 277 ITR 549 (Del.) 9. Since, the assessee had diverted its borrowed fund to its prompter company without charging any interest & Section 36(1)(iii) allows the deduction of the amount

SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), INDORE

In the result, both the appeal of assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & And Hon'Ble Manish Borad

disallowance of Section 54F, Rs. l1.11lakhs on account of 50 C and Rs. 28.73 on account of section 68 as per his predessor's order in Appeal nO.IT /783/11-12 dated 28.02.2014, against which the Appellant's appeal bearing No. ITA/379/IND/2014 is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 8.On the Facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) Shri

SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), INDORE

In the result, both the appeal of assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & And Hon'Ble Manish Borad

disallowance of Section 54F, Rs. l1.11lakhs on account of 50 C and Rs. 28.73 on account of section 68 as per his predessor's order in Appeal nO.IT /783/11-12 dated 28.02.2014, against which the Appellant's appeal bearing No. ITA/379/IND/2014 is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 8.On the Facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) Shri

THE DCIT, (CENTRAL)- I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. AG8 VENTURES LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 14A of the Act computed disallowance as per rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 of Rs.64,95,645/-. 11. Aggrieved against this order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) has noted that during the course of appellate proceedings, ground against disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act was withdrawn. Further