CUMMINS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P) LTD.,DEWAS vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicommins Technologies India Acit, Circle -1(1) Private Limited Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area No.2, A.B. Road, M.P. (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabct2018B Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved & Pinkesh Vakharia Ars Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

disallowance of claim of INR 72,992/- under section 10AA of the Act on the interest earned from fixed deposits kept with bank(s) by the Appellant as margin money for providing letter of credit and guarantee to the suppliers and other Government departments for registration like Sales Tax etc. 8. Deduction in respect of 'Education Cess on income

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 37(1) of the Act. 3. Development charges whether received or not would accrue to the assessee at the rate of Rs.170/- per Sq. Feet at par with 22 buyers of the plots and thus, the development charges would not be a charge on the assessee's profit as the same would be commensurately recoverable from the buyers

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 37(1) of the Act. 3. Development charges whether received or not would accrue to the assessee at the rate of Rs.170/- per Sq. Feet at par with 22 buyers of the plots and thus, the development charges would not be a charge on the assessee's profit as the same would be commensurately recoverable from the buyers

THE ACIT 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S PARAG FANS & COOLING SYSTEMS LTD., DEWAS

In the result appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

293 ITR 451 (Kar.) wherein the tribunal found that the sister company was the sole distributor agent for several years and had sole selling agent of the assessee company provided for payment of commission at 10% not on the net entire amount after giving deductions. Taking into consideration of these aspects of the matter allowed entire 10 of bill

THE ACIT 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S PARAG FANS & COOLING SYSTEMS LTD., DEWAS

In the result appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

293 ITR 451 (Kar.) wherein the tribunal found that the sister company was the sole distributor agent for several years and had sole selling agent of the assessee company provided for payment of commission at 10% not on the net entire amount after giving deductions. Taking into consideration of these aspects of the matter allowed entire 10 of bill

DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S ALPHA LABORITIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanivirtual Hearing

disallowable under explanation to section 37(2) of IT Act. But in present case neither there is any allegation of such payment nor there is any proof of the same. 4.3.5 There is also no bar on payment of commission to relatives if services are rendered by them as held in Computer Graphics

DCIT1(1) , INDORE vs. M/S ALPHA LABORITIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanivirtual Hearing

disallowable under explanation to section 37(2) of IT Act. But in present case neither there is any allegation of such payment nor there is any proof of the same. 4.3.5 There is also no bar on payment of commission to relatives if services are rendered by them as held in Computer Graphics

AGROH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P LTD,MHOW vs. PR CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Agroh Infrastructure Pr. Cit (Central) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Aqua Point, A.B.Road, Vs. Umaria, Mhow, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaeca 2752 L Assessee By Shri Manish Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2023

section 263 after expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. 3. In support of his contention has relied the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Alagendran Financ Ltd. 293 ITR 1 and submitted that the limitation would begin

SHRI NILESH JAIN HUF,INDORE vs. ITO 4(2), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Disallowance - - - 50522 of expenses 5. Since the issues are common we are adjudicating the same on the basis of facts of the case of Mr. Ayush Jain in ITA No.616/Ind/2019 to which no objection was raised by any of the parties. 6. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual

PRITESH JAIN HUF,INDORE vs. ITO 4 (2), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Disallowance - - - 50522 of expenses 5. Since the issues are common we are adjudicating the same on the basis of facts of the case of Mr. Ayush Jain in ITA No.616/Ind/2019 to which no objection was raised by any of the parties. 6. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual

M/S BHOPAL DUGDH SANGH SAHAKARI MY.DAIRY PLANT, BHOPAL vs. DCIT -1 (1) ,BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani

293/- Being aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO, the assessee submitted appeal to Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal and did not grant any relief. Again being aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal and now before us. 4. The assessee has raised following Grounds: 1. That

ACIT 2 (1), UJJAIN vs. M/S PHALODI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY NERSIGARH, NERSIGARH

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit-2(1) M/S. Phaloudi Construction बनाम/ Company, Nersingarh Ujjain Vs. Rajgarh (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aaffp9523Q Revenue By Shri V.J. Boricha, Sr. Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 06. 02.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal By Revenue Pertaining To A.Y. 2007-08 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)- Ujjain, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Dated 04.07.2017 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On M/S. Phaloudi Construction Co. Itano.657/Ind/2017 31.01.2013 By Dcit, 2(1), Ujjain. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.9,97,515/- On Account Of Short Deduction Of Tds Based On Proviso 2 To Section 40(A)(Ia) Which Was Introduced Only From 01.04.2013.”

section 40(a)(ia) which was introduced only from 01.04.2013.” 2. None appeared on behest of assessee even though the notice of hearing was duly served upon it. It was therefore, decided to hear this appeal with the assistance of the Ld. Departmental Representative and documents available on records. 3. Brief facts as culled out from the records are, that

INCOME TAX OFFICER INDORE 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

293\nOpening\nBalance\n7\nJaldeep lapat & Alloys (P)\nLtd. (Unit -II)\n13,54,498\n13,54,498\n13,54,498\nOpening\nBalance\n8\nJasvantial & Company\n20,617\n20,617\n20,617\nOpening\nBalance\n9\nKalyan Marbles &\nGranite Ltd.\n28,250\n28,250\n28,250\n10\nManoj Patel

SHRI HUMAD JAIN SAKH SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,INDORE vs. ITO 2(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

293 CTR 240 (Cal)] wherein it is held that the loss\nincurred on account of derivatives would be deemed business loss under\nproviso to section 43(5) and not speculation loss and, accordingly\nExplanation to section 73 could not be applied. Their Lordships have further\nheld that that the \"loss (on account of sale of derivatives) would be allowed

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AVILABLE FINANCE LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

disallow Rs 37,536/- (claim this year Rs. 1,57,236/- claimed last year Rs 1,19,700/-) and added to the assessee's total income. 6.14 Thus in this assessment order, the issue of share capital raised by Chamak in AY 2001-05 was specifically examined by issuing summons and not ice s under section

M/S AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD.,INDORE vs. THEDCIT 1(1) , INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

disallow Rs 37,536/- (claim this year Rs. 1,57,236/- claimed last year Rs 1,19,700/-) and added to the assessee's total income. 6.14 Thus in this assessment order, the issue of share capital raised by Chamak in AY 2001-05 was specifically examined by issuing summons and not ice s under section

DY. CIT -1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

disallow Rs 37,536/- (claim this year Rs. 1,57,236/- claimed last year Rs 1,19,700/-) and added to the assessee's total income. 6.14 Thus in this assessment order, the issue of share capital raised by Chamak in AY 2001-05 was specifically examined by issuing summons and not ice s under section

M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

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

Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act and or whether it is an allowable expenditure. 36. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee by various judgments mentioned herein below:- For the proposition that the cess is an allowable expenditure and is not hut by the disallowance contemplated