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)

section 250(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and therefore the directions of the Ld. CIT(A) were incomplete? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by disallowing

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)

section 250(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and therefore the directions of the Ld. CIT(A) were incomplete? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by disallowing

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowing entire deprecation claimed by appellant and secondly not justified in estimating NP @ 5%. Thus, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 2,04,60,184/- is Deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed.” 18. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the facts discussed above squarely establish that

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowing entire deprecation claimed by appellant and secondly not justified in estimating NP @ 5%. Thus, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 2,04,60,184/- is Deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed.” 18. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the facts discussed above squarely establish that

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowing entire deprecation claimed by appellant and secondly not justified in estimating NP @ 5%. Thus, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 2,04,60,184/- is Deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed.” 18. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the facts discussed above squarely establish that

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

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

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80P of the Act am the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 27-12-2022 passed under section 25 of the Act dismissed the appeal filed by the society. 3. The said order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi was served on the registered E-Mall of the society which

M/S RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIK VISHWAVIDHALYA,HOSANGABAD vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 324 & 325/Ind/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vs. Dcit, Vishwavidyalaya, Cpc, Bhopal Bangaluru

250(6) of the Act on 28.02.2018 for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 and upheld the intimations issued to the assessee disallowing the exemption u/s 10 of the Act relying upon the specific facts of the case and the judicial decisions in this 19 M/s.Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya,Bhopal. regard. Since, the demand was confirmed

M/S RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIK VISHWAVIDHALYA,HOSANGABAD vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 324 & 325/Ind/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vs. Dcit, Vishwavidyalaya, Cpc, Bhopal Bangaluru

250(6) of the Act on 28.02.2018 for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 and upheld the intimations issued to the assessee disallowing the exemption u/s 10 of the Act relying upon the specific facts of the case and the judicial decisions in this 19 M/s.Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya,Bhopal. regard. Since, the demand was confirmed

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

THE ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN vs. SHRI JASWINDAR SINGH OBEROI, UJJAIN

In the result, appeal of revenue is partly allowed

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

section 40A(3) of I.T. Act,1961 is deleted.”. Thus, the payments are also covered by exceptions provided under rule 6DD(b) of Income-Tax Rules, 1962. In the light of above facts, the grounds no.(i)to (iii) of revenue appeal is dismissed. 8. Ground no.(iv) relates to deletion of disallowance of interest

BHARAT SHAH,INDORE vs. THE ITO3(4), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance under section 54F be deleted. Ground 4: Apparent mistakes noticed in the appellate order of the Ld.CIT (A) A number of apparent, glaring, obvious and self evident mistakes on the records had taken placed while passing the appellate order by Ld. CIT (A) ( as per annexure- --1--attached herewith) Ground 5: General The Appellant craves leave to add, amend

NAVNEET KUMAR SANCHETI,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), DELHI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2013-14 Navneet Kumar Sancheti Nfac Prop. M/S Navnet Kumar Delhi बनाम/ Sancheti, Krishi Upaj Vs. Mandi Ashta (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Acnps5570J Assessee By Shri Govind Rinwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.01.2025

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 18.04.2024, which has emanated from the order of the Assessing Officer dated 22.03.2016 passed u/s 143(3), ITO, Sehore. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in the memorandum of appeal are as follows: Page 1 of 7 Navneet Kumar Sancheti ITA No. 495/Ind/2024 – AY 2013-14, “1.That the disallowances

NAMTEL TECHNOLOGIES P LTD ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT(A) NFAC NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, this appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Namtel Technologies (P) Dcit-3(1), Ltd., Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaccn6502F Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2022

section 40A(2). Ld. DR, therefore, prayed to uphold the disallowance. 11. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the material held on record. We observe that the assessee has paid impugned remuneration to a director, who is holding a qualification of Mechanical Engineer from reputed Jamia Milia Islamia, New Delhi and also possessing experience in computer

RAINA GARG,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Raina Garg, Ito-4(1), Prop. M/S. Garg Trading Bhopal Company, बनाम/ Purana Kabadkhana, Vs. Jumerati, Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aawpg4732F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.02.2024

250/- being payment of VAT on sale of vehicle be held to be unreasonable and unjustified. The disallowance made be deleted. (5) In the alternative and without prejudice to the grounds stated above the additions and disallowances made by the ld. AO and upheld by Ld. CIT(A) be held to be high and unreasonable and be suitably reduced

SHRI RAM BABU SINGH,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Ram Babu Singh, Dcit-1(1) C/O Sv Agrawal & Associates, Bhopal Dadi Dham, 24, Joy Builders Colony, Vs. Near Rafael Tower, Old Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aelps9945K Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 & 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23 .07.2024

250 of the Act, my regular counsel asked me to pay the challan for appeal fees immediately and accordingly the present appeal is being filed without any further delay. Page 2 of 14 ITANo.328/Ind/2023 Ram Babu Singh 3. Thus the assessee has explained the cause of delay that notices issued by CIT(A) as well as the impugned order were

CHARCHIT GARG,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

250 of the Act and upholding the addition of Rs. 4,58,090/- for the reason that the report in form No. 10DA was not filed within the time prescribed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. J-CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee complied with all requisite for claiming

NEW VISION SOFTEOCOM & CONSULTABCY P LTD ,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 3(1) , BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Last Date Of Filing The Income Tax Return U/S 139(1) Of The Act As Required By Section 43B(B) For Allowability Of Deduction On Actual Payment Basis.

250 of the Income tax Act is illegal and bad in law and is prayed to be quashed. 2. That the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in not allowing the deduction u/s 36(l)(va) of Rs. 5,23,920/- being the employees contribution under EPF and Rs, 35,188/- on account

SHRI KAMLESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 250(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not giving a notice to the Assessing Officer of the date and place for the hearing the appeal, 2. Not following the provisions of section 250(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard at the hearing of the appeal