SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

250 (Gujrat HC), the Ld. AO disallowed deduction, which was also upheld by Ld. CIT(A) in first-appeal. The observations and conclusions made by Ld. CIT(A) in AY 2009-10 are extracted below: “Disallowance u/s 80-IA 13. Ground No. 4 is against the disallowance u/s 80IA. During the year, the appellant has constructed roads at various places

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

250 (Gujrat HC), the Ld. AO disallowed deduction, which was also upheld by Ld. CIT(A) in first-appeal. The observations and conclusions made by Ld. CIT(A) in AY 2009-10 are extracted below: “Disallowance u/s 80-IA 13. Ground No. 4 is against the disallowance u/s 80IA. During the year, the appellant has constructed roads at various places

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

250 (Gujrat HC), the Ld. AO disallowed deduction, which was also upheld by Ld. CIT(A) in first-appeal. The observations and conclusions made by Ld. CIT(A) in AY 2009-10 are extracted below: “Disallowance u/s 80-IA 13. Ground No. 4 is against the disallowance u/s 80IA. During the year, the appellant has constructed roads at various places

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

250 (Gujrat HC), the Ld. AO disallowed deduction, which was also upheld by Ld. CIT(A) in first-appeal. The observations and conclusions made by Ld. CIT(A) in AY 2009-10 are extracted below: “Disallowance u/s 80-IA 13. Ground No. 4 is against the disallowance u/s 80IA. During the year, the appellant has constructed roads at various places

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

250 (Gujrat HC), the Ld. AO disallowed deduction, which was also upheld by Ld. CIT(A) in first-appeal. The observations and conclusions made by Ld. CIT(A) in AY 2009-10 are extracted below: “Disallowance u/s 80-IA 13. Ground No. 4 is against the disallowance u/s 80IA. During the year, the appellant has constructed roads at various places

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

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal as and by way of Second appeal under the Act. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066243407(1) dated 29.06.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred

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

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

KWALITY MOTEL SHIRAZ,BHOPAL vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEBER, SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTNT MEMBER Kwality Motel Shiraz 1, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal-462021

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- I.T.A No. 187/Ind/2021 A.Y. 2019-2020 Page No 2 Kwality Motel Shiraz vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], New Delhi has erred in confirming

JEHAN NUMA PALACE HOTEL PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT/ACIT,5(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

250 ITR 432:\n“8. By the Board circular, it has been made clear that if the audit report\nspecified under Section 80HHC(4) is not furnished with the return, then the\ndeduction may be disallowed

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 of the Act\ndismissed the appeal filed by the society.\n3. The said order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi was served on the\nregistered E-Mall of the society which

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).

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 of claim of ₹ 2,27,067/- in respect of employee’s contribution towards provident fund and ESIC which was paid beyond

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL , BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

4. This court is of the opinion that the principal reasoning of the ITAT, i.e. omission to reject the books of account, in which event the ad-hoc disallowance could have been adjusted and also the historical treatment of such expenses, cannot be termed as unreasonable; in support of its ultimate conclusion. In these circumstances, no substantial question

SOM DISTILLERIES PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(3), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

4. This court is of the opinion that the principal reasoning of the ITAT, i.e. omission to reject the books of account, in which event the ad-hoc disallowance could have been adjusted and also the historical treatment of such expenses, cannot be termed as unreasonable; in support of its ultimate conclusion. In these circumstances, no substantial question

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

250 (4, March 2013)? d) That the assessee is making contradictory and opportunistic claims of being a "developer" (for claiming 80-IA(4) benefit) and of being a "manufacturer" (for claiming benefit of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia))? e) intention of legislature for grant of benefit u/s 80-IA(4) as the main purpose of providing deduction under section

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

250 (4, March 2013)? d) That the assessee is making contradictory and opportunistic claims of being a "developer" (for claiming 80-IA(4) benefit) and of being a "manufacturer" (for claiming benefit of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia))? e) intention of legislature for grant of benefit u/s 80-IA(4) as the main purpose of providing deduction under section

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