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

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

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

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

section 250(2)(b) of the Act and in response to his notice, the AO failed to submit any report. Further, in absence of any specific request from the AO, the CIT(A) presumed that the AO did not want to attend the hearings. Thus, when the case involved whopping addition and the AO considered his additions on sound footing

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

section 250(2)(b) of the Act and in response to his notice, the AO failed to submit any report. Further, in absence of any specific request from the AO, the CIT(A) presumed that the AO did not want to attend the hearings. Thus, when the case involved whopping addition and the AO considered his additions on sound footing

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

KAMLESH MOTWANI,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-2(1),BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we\ntake a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with\nhearing.\n4.\nLd. AR for assessee submits that the section 250(6) of the Income-tax\nAct, 1961 provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the\nappeal shall be in writing and shall state the points

SANJANA CLOTHINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. AID, CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical\npurpose

disallow the appellant's claim for\nthe benefit of Section 115BBA when processing the return under\nSection 143(1) of the Act on 24.08.2022.\n6.4 In this connection, the provisions u/s 115BAA of the Act are\nrelevant and extracted as under:-\nCIRCULAR NO. 6/2022 [F. NO. 173/32/2022/ITA-1], DATED\n17-3-2022\n\"Section 115BAA of the Income

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

250/- per student = Rs.1,92,32,750/-was collected and remitted to the Dr. C.V. Raman University. Some of the AISECT Ltd ITA No.945, 946, 952 & 953/Ind/2019 centre had purchase extra copies of the prospectus and dues of the same was also remitted. 2. The aforesaid details were submitted to the AO on 30.03.2016 in which in reply

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

250/- per student = Rs.1,92,32,750/-was collected and remitted to the Dr. C.V. Raman University. Some of the AISECT Ltd ITA No.945, 946, 952 & 953/Ind/2019 centre had purchase extra copies of the prospectus and dues of the same was also remitted. 2. The aforesaid details were submitted to the AO on 30.03.2016 in which in reply

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

250/- per student = Rs.1,92,32,750/-was collected and remitted to the Dr. C.V. Raman University. Some of the AISECT Ltd ITA No.945, 946, 952 & 953/Ind/2019 centre had purchase extra copies of the prospectus and dues of the same was also remitted. 2. The aforesaid details were submitted to the AO on 30.03.2016 in which in reply

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

250/- per student = Rs.1,92,32,750/-was collected and remitted to the Dr. C.V. Raman University. Some of the AISECT Ltd ITA No.945, 946, 952 & 953/Ind/2019 centre had purchase extra copies of the prospectus and dues of the same was also remitted. 2. The aforesaid details were submitted to the AO on 30.03.2016 in which in reply

GOURAV BHARGAVA,BHOPAL vs. ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

disallowance was remanded to the AO for verification.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(1)", "253(5)", "43B", "36(1)(ii)", "139(1)", "234B", "234C", "250

RAMRATI SAHU,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

section 250 had already been passed on 27/06/2024 for Assessment Year\n2014-15. This was the first time the appellant became aware of the said order.\nThe delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor due to negligence, but is caused due\nto bona fide reasons arising from the appellant's age, unfamiliarity with, electronic\ncommunication, and the unfortunate

THEACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KETI CONSTRUCTION LTD., INDORE

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit(Central)-2 M/S Keti Construction Ltd Indore Vastalya Chamebers, Sapna Sangeeta, 31/6, Sneh Nagar Vs. Main Road, Indore

250(2)(b) of the Act. The AO did not submit any report or any reply in respect to the notice issued by ld. CIT(A), therefore, it is not a case of considering the record without giving opportunity to the AO. Ld. CIT(A) has verified the relevant record, books of account as well as the facts that

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

SOM DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Som Distilleries & Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Breweries Limited, 1(1), Vs. Som House, Bhopal. 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay:2014-15 Acit (Central)-1, Som Distilleries & बनाम/ Bhopal Breweries Limited, Vs. Som House, 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,03,68,947/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of various expenses that the Page 9 of 33 Som Distilleries and Breweries Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 271/Ind/2023

ACIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LTD., BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Som Distilleries & Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Breweries Limited, 1(1), Vs. Som House, Bhopal. 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay:2014-15 Acit (Central)-1, Som Distilleries & बनाम/ Bhopal Breweries Limited, Vs. Som House, 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,03,68,947/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of various expenses that the Page 9 of 33 Som Distilleries and Breweries Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 271/Ind/2023

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

5% by making general remarks cannot be said to be justified as has been rightly pointed out by the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting addition without any ambiguity so as to warrant interference. This ground of appeal is, therefore, found to be devoid of any merit and thus dismissed. 18. Ground No.3: Deletion of addition of Rs.5