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

section 12AA(3) & 12AA(4) of the Act only on the basis of invoking provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act for cancelling the registration u/s 12AA of the Act which in our view was not correct since only the amount of benefit of exemption can be a subject matter but continuing of registration u/s 12AA

SAHARAYN UNIVERSAL MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance under section 40(a) (ia), but he has not\ndealt with the claim of the assessee for the allowance of the cooperative educator expenses. It\nis like blowing hot and cold. It is a well settled law that the ITO cannot pick and choose some\npart of the material produced before him and reject the other part

THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE vs. JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Disallowance of freight expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) 2013-14 3 2014-15 2 2016-17 4 2017-18 5 2018-19 7 7 Unexplained investment in construction of house 2016-17 3 u/s 69 2017-18 3 2018-19 3 8 Unexplained investment in furniture & fixture 2017-18 4 2018-19 4 9 Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 related

JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Disallowance of freight expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) 2013-14 3 2014-15 2 2016-17 4 2017-18 5 2018-19 7 7 Unexplained investment in construction of house 2016-17 3 u/s 69 2017-18 3 2018-19 3 8 Unexplained investment in furniture & fixture 2017-18 4 2018-19 4 9 Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 related

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

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

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

In the result, the impugned order is set aside as & by way of\nremand back to the file of the Ld

disallowed under section 69 of the\nIncome tax Act, 1961 as \"unexplained investments\", to be\ntaxed as per the provisions of Section 115BBE of the\nIncome tax Act, 1961.\"\n2.3\nThat it is also recorded in the “Impugned Assessment\nOrder” that following opportunities were given to the assessee\nwhich is tabulated & is reproduced herein :\n\" 1. Details of opportunities given

SANTOSH CHATURVEDI,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purpose

249(2) of the\nI.T Act and therefore the appeal is dismissed.\nSince the appeal has been found not maintainable as per\ndiscussion made in the preceding paras, therefore, no decision\non merits on the grounds of appeal is given.\n8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed\"\n2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order\"\nhas preferred

SANTOSH CHATURVEDI,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purpose

249(2) of the\nI.T Act and therefore the appeal is dismissed.\nSince the appeal has been found not maintainable as per\npreceding paras, therefore, no decision\non merits on the grounds of appeal is given.\n8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed\"\n2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order\"\nhas preferred the instant second appeal

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

4. Datamatics Ltd. 7.27 5. E-Zest Solutions Ltd 36.12 6. Flextronics Software Systems Ltd.(Seg) 25.31 7. Geometric Ltd. (Seg) 10.71 8. Helios & Matheson Information Technologies Ltd. 40.35 9. I-Gate Global Solutions Ltd. 7.49 10. Infosys Technologies Ltd. 40.30 11. Ishir Infotech Ltd. 30.12 12. KALS Information Systems Ltd. (Seg) 30.55 13. LGS Global Ltd. (Lanco Global Solutions

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. AGROH TOLL HIGHWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiincome Tax Agroh Toll Highways Private बनाम/ Officer-1(1), Limited Vs. Indore Floor No.104, Krishna Harmony, 14/2 New Palasia, Indore, Indore (Pan:Aalca2341L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.03.2026 Date Of 27.03.2026 Pronouncement आदेश/ O R D E R

disallowed the deduction under section 801A merely on a ground that the audit report was furnished after due date by the appellant. 5.5 Further, the appellant has submitted that furnishing of the auditors' report along with the return be treated as a procedural provision, and the exemption shall not be denied merely on the ground that the audit report

SHREE RAJENDRA SURI SAH SAKH SANTHA MYD,RAJGARH, DHAR vs. THE ITO, DHAR, DHAR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

disallowance of 25 percent of other expenses of Rs.2,07,953/-claimed in the Profit and Loss account in view of leakage and personal effect without properly appreciating the facts of the case and submissions made before him\n\n7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred

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

4. Vaishnavi Educational Society v Deputy Commissioner of Income 21-30 Tax, Central Circle, Tirupati ( Hon’ble ITAT-Hyderabad) 5 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions) Lucknow v M/s 31-57 Shri Ramswaroop Charitable Trust (Hon’ble ITAT-Lucknow) 6 Hans Raj Samarak Society v Assistant Director of Income Tax 58-62 (Exemptions), Trust Circle-II, Delhi (ITAT-Delhi

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

4. Vaishnavi Educational Society v Deputy Commissioner of Income 21-30 Tax, Central Circle, Tirupati ( Hon’ble ITAT-Hyderabad) 5 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions) Lucknow v M/s 31-57 Shri Ramswaroop Charitable Trust (Hon’ble ITAT-Lucknow) 6 Hans Raj Samarak Society v Assistant Director of Income Tax 58-62 (Exemptions), Trust Circle-II, Delhi (ITAT-Delhi

M/S AYUSH AJAY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. ,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-(1), INDORE

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Ayushajay Construction Pr.Cit-1, Private Limited, Indore. बनाम/ 3/3, South Tukoganj, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aacca 5523 B Assessee By Shri Prakash Jain & Ms. Shreya Jain, Cas Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.01.2024

249 as compensation payable to the assessee. The assessee was not satisfied with the amount of compensation, and preferred an appeal before the arbitrator, 24 Parganas, Calcutta. The arbitrator made an award dated 29-7-1955 whereby he fixed the amount of compensation at Rs. 30,10,873 on account of the permanent acquisition of the land, thus, enhancing