BADAUD SHRI VARDHMAN SHIKSHA ,BADAUD vs. THE ITO NFAC DELHI, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2018-19 Badaud Shri Vardhaman Ito, बनाम/ Shiksha Samiti, Nfac, Badaud Delhi Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aacab5370 Assessee By Shri Sharad Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

section 270A(2) is also not applicable because in the present case for the reason that the total income was reported by assessee at Rs. Nil which remained Rs. Nil at the time of assessment, it is not a case where the assessment has the effect of reducing the loss or converting loss into income. Ld. AR submitted that

DXC TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT LTD,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

disallowance made by the AO was therefore against the provisions of law.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "14A", "143(3)", "142(1)", "10(35)", "115JB", "270A

HAMID HUSAIN,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiito-4(1), Hamid Husain, बनाम/ Bhopal 369, Kaji Camp, Vs. Gali No.3, Near Sindhi Colony, Berasia Road, Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Hamid Husain, Assessment Unit, बनाम/ 369, Kaji Camp, Income Tax Department Vs. Gali No.3, Near Sindhi Colony, Berasia Road, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 270A of the I.T. Act are also being initiated separately for under reporting of the income. (Addition of Rs. 9,10,39,185/-)” (ii) Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A). The assessee made detailed submission which is re-produced by CIT(A) in Para No. 4 / Pages 3 to 6 of impugned order

INCOME TAX OFFICER -4(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. HAMID HUSAIN, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

section 270A of the I.T. Act are also being initiated\nseparately for under reporting of the income. (Addition of Rs.9,10,39,185/-)”\n\n(ii) Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A).\nThe assessee made detailed submission which is re-produced by CIT(A)\nin Para No. 4 / Pages 3 to 6 of impugned order

SHREE SHANTANU VIDHYAPEETH SOCIETY ,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

disallowance of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab). Ld.\nDR submitted that the receipts from government grant is just 3.50%\nand therefore the assessee is very far from the entitlement of\nsection 10(23C)(iiiab). Accordingly, Ld. DR requested to uphold the\ndisallowance made by lower authorities. However, the Ld. DR did\nnot make any opposition to the alternative claim

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

10 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023 AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 of Salary Registers found during search disregarding the books of accounts maintained by assessee. Ld. AR submitted that the realistic position in both cases i.e. FCI and Ambuja is same. Then, Ld. AR referred the Ledger A/cs of Hamali Expenses

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

10 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023 AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 of Salary Registers found during search disregarding the books of accounts maintained by assessee. Ld. AR submitted that the realistic position in both cases i.e. FCI and Ambuja is same. Then, Ld. AR referred the Ledger A/cs of Hamali Expenses

MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. ACIT- (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

10 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023 AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 of Salary Registers found during search disregarding the books of accounts maintained by assessee. Ld. AR submitted that the realistic position in both cases i.e. FCI and Ambuja is same. Then, Ld. AR referred the Ledger A/cs of Hamali Expenses

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

disallowed (House property). That the aforesaid assessment order is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. In the “impugned assessment order” issuance of a penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A(1)/ 270A(9)(a) of the Act was contemplated too. 2.2 That as and by way of an order (penalty) passed u/s 270A of the Act i.e. “Misreporting penalty

THE DCIT CIRCLE 5(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S L N MALVIYA INFRA PROJECTS P LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit, Circle 5(1) M/S. L.N. Malviya Infra Projects Bhopal Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.29, F/F Sector, Dwarka Vs. New Delhi

10 of 17 ITANo.189/Ind/2023 L.N. Malviya Infra Projects P. Ltd. 12. We have considered rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that the AO has made an adhoc disallowance of 5% of the traveling expenses in para 3.4.4 as under: “3.4.4 In connection with the Travelling expenses

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed (House property). That the\naforesaid assessment order is hereinafter referred to as the\n“impugned assessment order”. In the “impugned assessment\norder" issuance of a penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s.270A(1)/\n270A(9)(a) of the Act was contemplated too.\n2.2 That as and by way of an order (penalty) passed u/s 270A of\nthe Act i.e. “Misreporting penalty

SMT HAFIZ SHAIKH,DEWAS vs. THE ITO WARD-1, DEWAS

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanihafiz Shaikh Ito Ward-1 32/2, Laxmi Park Moti Dewas Vs. Bunglow Dewas (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ajups6986 L Assessee By Ms. Richa Parwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2023

270A is being initiated separately. 6. The provision of section 45(3) contemplates only the deemed consideration in case of transfer of capital asset by the partner to the partnership firm. Therefore, the claim of deduction u/s 54B cannot be denied only because the transfer of the capital asset falls under the provision of section

AABHUSHAN,DHAMNOD, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO DHAR, DHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaabhushan Dhamnod Ito, Dhar 1St Floor, Ganpati Market Ab Road Dhamnod Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abgfa0812K Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & Shri S.N. Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024 O R D E R

10. Ground No.6 is regarding the disallowance of salary, interest and audit fee. In the assessment the AO has made an addition of Rs. 1,27,267/- being on account of sundry creditors, customer advances and provision. On appeal the CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the AO. 10.1 Before the Tribunal Ld. AR of the assessee

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

10 of 107\npurposes placed its strong reliance upon the facts and figures reported\nin the final accounts and disclosed in the Audit Report filed claiming\nthat the same has been certified by the qualified Charted Accountant.\nEven after grant of notices suggesting the completion of assessment\nproceedings ex-prate, the assessee company did not bothered to\nfurnish the details

KHANDWA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. ACIT, KHANDWA, KHANDWA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2017-18 Khandwa Industries Pvt. Ld., Acit, G-2 Amans Corner, Khandwa बनाम/ 301, Goyal Vihar, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aadck4103G Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025

270A are hereby initiated for under reporting of income.” 5. Now, we extract the order passed by CIT(A) reading as under: “Ground No. 1.5 & 1.6 - The appellant has contended that the AO has erred in viewing the TAR pertaining to previous year i.e. A.Y. 2016-17 and made a disallowance of Rs. 41,39,084/-. In this regard

INDORE SAHAKARI DUGDH SANGH MARYADIT,DAIRY COMPOUND, MANGLIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

270A of the Income Tax Act 1961 whereas the Appellant had not under reported Income. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in levy of Interest u/s 234A,2348,234C & 234D. 4. The Appellant Craves leave to add, alter, amend any or all the Grounds of Appeal on or before the date of Hearing.” 2. Solitary common issue arises

INDORE SAHAKARI DUGDH SANGH MARYADIT,DAIRY COMPOUND, MANGLIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

270A of the Income Tax Act 1961 whereas the Appellant had not under reported Income. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in levy of Interest u/s 234A,2348,234C & 234D. 4. The Appellant Craves leave to add, alter, amend any or all the Grounds of Appeal on or before the date of Hearing.” 2. Solitary common issue arises

CMM KETI JV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(3), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Cmm Keti Jv, Income-Tax Officer, 108, Shalimar Corporate 1(3), Center, Indore. बनाम/ 8-B, South Tukoganj, Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aakfc7524K Assessee By Shri Shashank Sharma, Ca & Shri Prakash Gupta, Ca Revenue By Shri Sanjeev H. Bhagat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2025

270A(9), 271B and 272(1)(d). Page 2 of 10 CMM Keti JV, Indore. ITA No. 73/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18 4. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) passed following order upholding the addition made by AO: “8. Ground no.1 is relating to addition of Rs. 1,03,58,390/- being 2% of the turnover as the income