THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 147 of the Act and, thereafter, concluded that the losses obtained by the assessee on NMCE platform were contrived CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 losses and those losses were incurred by executing the synchronized trades dealing in illiquid commodities only. He also alleged that the losses were incurred with a specific intention to reduce taxable income by setting

RNG CONSTRUCTION CO.,INDIRA NAGAR vs. DCIT, DCIT-CPC

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshirng Construction Co. Dcit बनाम/ 14, Sector-A, Vs. Indira Nagar, Mandideep (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqfr9084B Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025

disallowance of service-tax of Rs. 25,10,511/- was ‘without jurisdiction and beyond the purview of section 143(1)’. 6. Ld. AR for assessee

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)\nof the Act does not arise since the claim of Rs.644.29 crores was not allowed by\nthe CIT(A), is misconceived, both on a plain reading of the statute and on settled\nprinciples of tax law.\n2.00 Section 40(a)(ia) is a non obstante provision, which overrides sections 30 to\n38. The relevant

INFOBEANS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE, M.P.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed being devoid of

Bench: Sh. Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

25. We have heard the rival submission, and considered the materials on record placed in the paper book. We are of the opinion that the order of the AO is cryptic and non speaking without any reason , and we also note that the specific issue of applicability of provisions of section 14A vis a vis the computation of income

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

disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before us. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company was incorporated in India on 13.09.1996. The assessee provides software development and maintenance services from STPI and SEZ registered units. The primary activities of the assessee relate to provision

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 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

disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before us. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company was incorporated in India on 13.09.1996. The assessee provides software development and maintenance services from STPI and SEZ registered units. The primary activities of the assessee relate to provision

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT-CIRCLE 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

disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before us. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company was incorporated in India on 13.09.1996. The assessee provides software development and maintenance services from STPI and SEZ registered units. The primary activities of the assessee relate to provision

PRASHANTI ENGINEERING WORKS P LTD,PITHAMPUR vs. THE ASST.DCIT ,CPC, BANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Under Section 139(1).

25-10-2019, showing total income of ₹ 11,86,250/-. Thereafter, CPC Bangalore processed the return and an intimation under section 143(1) of the Act was passed on 18-04-2020. The income was assessed at ₹ 14,13,310/- in the said intimation by making disallowance

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

Appeal is dismissed

25,418/-. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance. The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal.", "held": "The Assessing Officer made a disallowance under Section

SHRADDHA SAKH SAHKARI SANSTHA,BARWANI vs. THE ITO, SENDHWA, SENDHWA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance\nof deduction claimed under section 80P of the Act am the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC,\nDelhi vide order dated 27-12-2022 passed under section 25

SATYA NARAYAN AGRAWAL,VIDISHA vs. ACIT 4 (1), VIDISHA

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisatya Narayan Agrawal Acit, 4(1) 25, Station Road, Ganj Bhopal Vs. Basoda, Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaxpa 1865 E Assessee By Shri Arun Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22 .06.2023

disallowance of 25% of all these expenses while framing ex-parte assessment u/s 144 of the Act. He has pointed out that Page 3 of 8 Satya Narayan Agrawal Page 4 of 8 the notice issued u/s 144 was not served upon the assesse and therefore, there was no response on behalf of the assessee. Ld. AR has further contended

MUDIT KUMAR BAJAJ,UJJAIN vs. ITO-1(2), UJJAIN

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aezpb2621P Assessee By Ms. Nupur Ladha & Shri Vaibhav Siroliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2024 O R D E R

25. Here, it is relevant to note that there has been no change in the provisions of section 40A(3) in so far as considerations of business expediency and other relevant factors are concerned, as existed at relevant point in time and as considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the provisions of section 40A(3) as exist

THE DCIT,1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. RITSPIN SYNTHETICS LTD., PITHAMPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms indicated above, and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 was not sustainable and deleted the same. Consequent to the deletion of the principal addition, the learned CIT(A) further held that the disallowance of interest of ₹25

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

25 of 30 ITA No. 6 to 9 & 11/Ind/2023 Essarjee Construction P. Ltd. Page 26 of 30 added to the income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. 35. Before us the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the disallowance made by the AO is highly arbitrary and unjustified without

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

25 of 30 ITA No. 6 to 9 & 11/Ind/2023 Essarjee Construction P. Ltd. Page 26 of 30 added to the income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. 35. Before us the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the disallowance made by the AO is highly arbitrary and unjustified without

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

25 of 30 ITA No. 6 to 9 & 11/Ind/2023 Essarjee Construction P. Ltd. Page 26 of 30 added to the income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. 35. Before us the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the disallowance made by the AO is highly arbitrary and unjustified without

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

25 of 30 ITA No. 6 to 9 & 11/Ind/2023 Essarjee Construction P. Ltd. Page 26 of 30 added to the income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. 35. Before us the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the disallowance made by the AO is highly arbitrary and unjustified without

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT-1 (1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

25 of 30 ITA No. 6 to 9 & 11/Ind/2023 Essarjee Construction P. Ltd. Page 26 of 30 added to the income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. 35. Before us the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the disallowance made by the AO is highly arbitrary and unjustified without