RITIKA JAIN,THANE vs. ITO(IT TP), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAVAN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiritika Jain, Cit (Appeals), बना A-504, Laxmi Residency Chs Nfac, म/ Ltd, Delhi Vs. Opposite Datta Mandir Check Naka, Wagle Estate, Thane

3 of 18 Ritika Jain ITA No. 632/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2015-16 paid through the ICICI bank account of the husband of assessee, Shri Ankur Preeti Jain and the balance amount was paid through the PNB account of the assesse. On being asked for the source of the payment made by her and her husband, the assessee submitted that source

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

249 (Delhi –Tribunal) 10 Order dated 13/05/2020 passed in case of Bhariya Kissan 78-86 Chartitable Club Trust, Roorkee v. The Income Tax officer Exemptions (Dehradun) by Hon’ble ITAT Dehradun Bench) 13. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the assessee

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

249 (Delhi –Tribunal) 10 Order dated 13/05/2020 passed in case of Bhariya Kissan 78-86 Chartitable Club Trust, Roorkee v. The Income Tax officer Exemptions (Dehradun) by Hon’ble ITAT Dehradun Bench) 13. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the assessee

M/S. DIASPARK INFOTECH PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE NFAC ,NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & T.R. Senthil Kumar

disallowance. Therefore, the assessee filed a rectification application under section 154 of the Act, however, after lapse of considerable time, rectification petition was not disposed of by the Department, and ultimately, the assessee-company filed statutory appeal under section 246(1)(a) of the Act, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 12.2.2020 wherein a delay of 184 days

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. SANWARIA AGROILS LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

3 relates to maintaining the disallowance of claim of additional depreciation of Rs. 1,20,20,000/- under section 32 (1) (iia) of the Act on Wind Electric Generator. 18. Facts apropos of this ground are that the AO noted that the assessee has shown addition to asset of Wind Electric Generator for Rs. 1, 20, 20, 000/-during

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

disallowing said payments under section 40A (3)- Whether on facts, impugned revisional order did not require any interference- Held, yes [Para-16] [ In favour of revenue] 4.0 Therefore, in view of the above discussion I am of the considered opinion that the order dated: 06.01.2016 for A.Y. 2013-14 is erroneous in so far as it is also prejudicial

RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 5, SEHORE, SEHORE

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

disallowed under section 69 of the Income tax Act, 1961 as "unexplained investments", to be taxed as per the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income tax Act, 1961." 2.3 That it is also recorded in the “Impugned Assessment Order” that following opportunities were given to the assessee which is tabulated & is reproduced herein : " 1. Details of opportunities given Type

THE ACIT, CICLE -4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. NAROTTAMDAS ENTERPRISES PODDAR PLAZA, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

249 ITR 306, wherein it was held that the opinion of audit party regarding application or interpretation of law is not information within the meaning of Section 147(b) of the Act, hence, reassessment based on opinion of audit party is invalid. Further, the reopening of assessment has not been found permissible within four corners of law as held

ITO 2(1), UJJAIN vs. SHRI SANTOSH AGRAWAL PROP. M/S. SANTOSH ENTERPRISES, UJJAIN

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2010-11

disallowed in the proceeding under Section 143(3) of the Act. In support of his argument he has relied on the judicial pronouncements in the following matter ; 3 Santosh Agrawal (i) CIT V/s Kelvinator India Ltd 320 ITR 561 (ii) ITO V/s Techspan India (P) Ltd (2018) 404 ITR 10(SC) (iii) Asteroids Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd V/s DCIT

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 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

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 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

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 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

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 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

249 (Del.) in which it was held as under : Both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have returned a concurrent and clear finding of fact that the notice under s. 143(2) was issued on 23rd March, 2000 and since the return was filed on 27th March, 2000, the notice was not a valid one and, therefore, the assessment completed

MH BROTHERS ,RAISEN vs. THE ITO , RAISEN

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

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

Section 249(2)/249(3). In this case, there is no explanation for the delay nor is there any request for condonation of such delay. In view of the above facts, the appeal is dismissed in limini.” 6. Thus, it is clear that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation and in absence

MH BROTHERS ,RAISEN vs. THE ITO , RAISEN

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

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

Section 249(2)/249(3). In this case, there is no explanation for the delay nor is there any request for condonation of such delay. In view of the above facts, the appeal is dismissed in limini.” 6. Thus, it is clear that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation and in absence

VIJAY KUMAR PAREKH,INDORE vs. WARD1(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivijay Kumar Parekh Ito-Ward -1(1) 406-407 Apollo Tower, 2Mg Indore Road Vs. Indore-452001 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afkpp 3277M Assessee By Shri Abhinava Jain & Sudhir Padliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2024

disallowance of claim of set off of loss under the head income from other sources against the business income of the assessee for year under consideration. Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee filed a petition u/s 154 on 5th August 2014 and thereafter did not receive any communication from the department/CPC. Only when the assessee came to know about