M/S PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Disallowance on merits I. Enhancement is not valid 1. It is a settled law that the powers of ld CIT(A) are wide. U/s. 251(1)(a), ld CIT(A) has the power to “confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment”. Further, u/s. 251(2), an opportunity of being heard shall be provided before enhancement of assessment. Also, under Explanation

M/S. PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Disallowance on merits I. Enhancement is not valid 1. It is a settled law that the powers of ld CIT(A) are wide. U/s. 251(1)(a), ld CIT(A) has the power to “confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment”. Further, u/s. 251(2), an opportunity of being heard shall be provided before enhancement of assessment. Also, under Explanation

M/S. PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Disallowance on merits I. Enhancement is not valid 1. It is a settled law that the powers of ld CIT(A) are wide. U/s. 251(1)(a), ld CIT(A) has the power to “confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment”. Further, u/s. 251(2), an opportunity of being heard shall be provided before enhancement of assessment. Also, under Explanation

SHRI MANISH KALANI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in both the assessment years are allowed

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

disallowances of Rs. 28,345/- and Rs. 1,65,488/- made u/s 14A of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the provisions of Section 251

SHRI SAURABH KALANI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in both the assessment years are allowed

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

disallowances of Rs. 28,345/- and Rs. 1,65,488/- made u/s 14A of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the provisions of Section 251

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

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

section 251 (4) of IT Act in order to get the further verification done by the AO. Para 3.9:- The CIT (A) states that “learned AO had disallowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

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

section 251 (4) of IT Act in order to get the further verification done by the AO. Para 3.9:- The CIT (A) states that “learned AO had disallowed

ACIT CIRCLE-2(I), BHOPAL vs. MAPAAEX REMEDIES (P) LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year 2014-15 Acit, Circle -2(1) Mapaaex Remedies Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Hig-500, E-7, Arera Colony, Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan No. Aaecm 2274 P Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv & Gagan Tiwari, Adv. Date Of Hearing 17.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26.12.2022

disallow deduction. To support his submissions, Ld. AR placed a heavy reliance on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi Bench “F” in the case of Vimoni India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2012) 143 taxmann.com 136, order dated 14.07.2022 where it was held thus: “7. Before us, Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee, submitted, the assessee

SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), INDORE

In the result, both the appeal of assessee in ITANo

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

disallowance of Section 54F, Rs. l1.11lakhs on account of 50 C and Rs. 28.73 on account of section 68 as per his predessor's order in Appeal nO.IT /783/11-12 dated 28.02.2014, against which the Appellant's appeal bearing No. ITA/379/IND/2014 is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 8.On the Facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) Shri

SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), INDORE

In the result, both the appeal of assessee in ITANo

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

disallowance of Section 54F, Rs. l1.11lakhs on account of 50 C and Rs. 28.73 on account of section 68 as per his predessor's order in Appeal nO.IT /783/11-12 dated 28.02.2014, against which the Appellant's appeal bearing No. ITA/379/IND/2014 is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 8.On the Facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) Shri

DCIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL, MHOW

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

disallowance out of various expenses claimed by the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.4,96,06,927/- made by the Assessing officer on account of bogus sundry creditors.” 2.4 Grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee

DCIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL, MHOW

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

disallowance out of various expenses claimed by the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.4,96,06,927/- made by the Assessing officer on account of bogus sundry creditors.” 2.4 Grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee

DCIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL, MHOW

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

disallowance out of various expenses claimed by the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.4,96,06,927/- made by the Assessing officer on account of bogus sundry creditors.” 2.4 Grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee

M/S M.P. MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

disallowances. Thus, ground nos. 1 to 5 are allowed. 5.1 By following the said decision of the Tribunal the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal for A.Y.2012-13 vide order dated 21.09.2022 has again decided this issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the assessee is charitable institute and eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. These decisions passed

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

disallowances. Thus, ground nos. 1 to 5 are allowed. 5.1 By following the said decision of the Tribunal the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal for A.Y.2012-13 vide order dated 21.09.2022 has again decided this issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the assessee is charitable institute and eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. These decisions passed

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

disallowances. Thus, ground nos. 1 to 5 are allowed. 5.1 By following the said decision of the Tribunal the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal for A.Y.2012-13 vide order dated 21.09.2022 has again decided this issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the assessee is charitable institute and eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. These decisions passed

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

disallowances. Thus, ground nos. 1 to 5 are allowed. 5.1 By following the said decision of the Tribunal the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal for A.Y.2012-13 vide order dated 21.09.2022 has again decided this issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the assessee is charitable institute and eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. These decisions passed

THE DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL vs. M/S. INDORE EDUCATION AND SERVICE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13

disallowed in the earlier year under section 43B were not claimed on payment in the assessment year by oversight was allowed by the Tribunal as the matter was before the assessing authority i.11 the earlier years." First Time Claim Before the CIT(A): Another related issue that arises is whether the assessee can claim relief before the CIT(A) even