M/S. M.P. RAJYA OPEN SCHOOL,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P. Meena, Am

disallowance, appeals were filed by respondent assessee under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act in the High Court

M/S. M.P. RAJYA OPEN SCHOOL,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P. Meena, Am

disallowance, appeals were filed by respondent assessee under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act in the High Court

M/S. M.P. RAJYA OPEN SCHOOL,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P. Meena, Am

disallowance, appeals were filed by respondent assessee under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act in the High Court

M/S. M.P. RAJYA OPEN SCHOOL,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P. Meena, Am

disallowance, appeals were filed by respondent assessee under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act in the High Court

M/S. M.P. RAJYA OPEN SCHOOL,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P. Meena, Am

disallowance, appeals were filed by respondent assessee under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act in the High Court

M/S. M.P. RAJYA OPEN SCHOOL,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P. Meena, Am

disallowance, appeals were filed by respondent assessee under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act in the High Court

M/S. M.P. RAJYA OPEN SCHOOL,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P. Meena, Am

disallowance, appeals were filed by respondent assessee under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act in the High Court

M/S BEYOND KEY SYSTEMS P LTD,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1(1) , INDORE

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Beyond Key Systems Dcit/Acit-Circle,1(1) Private Ltd. Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaccb 7622 G Assessee By Shri Manish Dafaria, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.01.2023

section 40A(7). Simultaneously, the pre-existing scrutiny- proceeding initiated on 22.09.2019 was also continuing wherein the Ld. AO issued a query letter u/s 142(1) dated 29.10.2020 [Paper-Book Page No. 53 & 54] to examine the disallowance u/s 40A(7). In response, the assessee filed a detailed reply dated 11.11.2020 [Paper-Book Page No. 55 to 57] wherein

THE ACIT-4(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. R. K. GUPTA CONSTRACTORS & ENGINEERS PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, the Appellate Authorities and the Tribunal. Challenging the dis- allowance, appeals were filed by respondent assessee under Section 260

M/S KOHINOOR ELASTICS P LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

260/- which is bad in law and excessive. 3. The assessee company filed its return declaring total income at Rs. 8,63,43,150/-. The CPC, Bangalore processed this return and made addition of Rs. 43,00,281 under Section 36(1)(va) on account of delay in payment of employees’ contribution of provident fund / ESI. The addition

IMRAN KHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO2 (2), BHYOPAL

In the result the issue No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradimran Khan Ito 2(2) S/O Sh. Gulab Khan H. No.35 Bhopal Village-Inayatpura Kolar Board, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ckqpk5708M Assessee By Shri Niranjan Purandar Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.01.2024

disallowed the deduction on the ground that the land is in the name of the son of the assessee, so the deduction cannot be allowed, specially when the land was purchased by Sh. Gurnam Singh out of the sale proceeds of agricultural land and since Palwinder Singh was bachelor and was not having any independent source of income was dependent

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

260 ITR 366 (Guj)]. Section 11(4) is merely intended to tax income which is not accounted for in the books: it does not operate to charge a disclosed amount which is admittedly expended, for a purpose either charitable or non- charitable, but is disclos as business expenditure and consequently added back in computing the business income. [CIT v Birla

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

260 ITR 366 (Guj)]. Section 11(4) is merely intended to tax income which is not accounted for in the books: it does not operate to charge a disclosed amount which is admittedly expended, for a purpose either charitable or non- charitable, but is disclos as business expenditure and consequently added back in computing the business income. [CIT v Birla

THE DCIT, 5(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. SANWARIA AGRO OILS LTD., BHOPAL

In the result Ground No.2 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11

disallowing the claim of assessee for payment of liability of commercial tax, entry tax and works contract tax. These liabilities arose on account of orders of assessment under commercial tax and entry tax. The assessee filed the appeals against these orders and had to deposit part of demand. Remaining part of the liability was paid during the year. As submitted

ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S RUCHI J OIL PVT. LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

260/-. Case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS followed by serving of statutory notices. During the course of assessment proceedings Ld. AO observed that the assessee has entered into a transaction of acquisition of an undertaking by way of slump sale from its sister concern M/s Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. for a consideration

DCIT,CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI KRIHNA KUMAR VERMA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI (Accountant Member)

260/- including additional income of Rs.4,53,43,587/- voluntary declared during the course of search and survey. However, as per AO, the details and evidences furnished by the assessee are nothing but an afterthought and therefore, subsequent addition was made in the income of the appellant by applying tax rate as per amended provisions of section 115BBE

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. KUMARI SHEETAL GARG, INDORE

In the result Ground No. 1& 2 of the

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Dcit-3(1), Kumari Sheetal Garg, Indore Vs. 8/2, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Afhpg9179G Revenue By Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ca Date Of Hearing 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 O R D E R

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 54F as claim of Long Term Capital Gain was treated as Short Term Capital Gain. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that effective date of transfer from hands of assessee was date of registration i.e. 10.04.2007 while, the assessee relinquished here rights

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowances ouf of various expenses claimed by the appellant whereas the remaining addition of Rs.8,83,283/- was made by invoking the provisions of S.14A of the Act. The AO while passing the assessment order also initiated penalty proceedings under S.271AAA of the Act. A copy of the assessment order has already been furnished by the appellant along with