M/S RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIK VISHWAVIDHALYA,HOSANGABAD vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 324 & 325/Ind/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vs. Dcit, Vishwavidyalaya, Cpc, Bhopal Bangaluru

disallowed by 53 M/s.Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya,Bhopal. way of an intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. 14. We are conscious of the fact that Section 36(1)(vii

M/S RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIK VISHWAVIDHALYA,HOSANGABAD vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 324 & 325/Ind/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vs. Dcit, Vishwavidyalaya, Cpc, Bhopal Bangaluru

disallowed by 53 M/s.Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya,Bhopal. way of an intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. 14. We are conscious of the fact that Section 36(1)(vii

M/S. NARMADA MALWA GRAMIN BANK,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-3(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit- 3(1) M/S. Narmada Malwa Gramin Indore Bank, बनाम/ 201, Arcade Silver, 56 Shops, New Vs. Palasia, Indore (M.P.) (Revenue ) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaccn2847F Assessment Year: 2008-09

36(1)(vii(a). The second ground on which the claim was disallowed was that the claim was made without making a provision in the books of accounts as required by the provisions of section

THE ACIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. NARMADA MALWA GRAMIN BANK, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit- 3(1) M/S. Narmada Malwa Gramin Indore Bank, बनाम/ 201, Arcade Silver, 56 Shops, New Vs. Palasia, Indore (M.P.) (Revenue ) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaccn2847F Assessment Year: 2008-09

36(1)(vii(a). The second ground on which the claim was disallowed was that the claim was made without making a provision in the books of accounts as required by the provisions of section

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

36 Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. Principal CIT V/s Shahlon Silk Mills Pvt Ltd dated (iii) 05.02.2018 (iv) (v) Decision of Honourable ITAT, Ahmedabad in case of Sulochanadevi A. Agarwal, Suratvs Department Of Income Tax (vi) Smt. Raj Rani Gupta V/s DCIT Central (vii) Mothers Pride Education Personna P. Ltd. V/s DCIT Central (viii) Neeraj SingalVs. Assistant

M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

36 Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. Principal CIT V/s Shahlon Silk Mills Pvt Ltd dated (iii) 05.02.2018 (iv) (v) Decision of Honourable ITAT, Ahmedabad in case of Sulochanadevi A. Agarwal, Suratvs Department Of Income Tax (vi) Smt. Raj Rani Gupta V/s DCIT Central (vii) Mothers Pride Education Personna P. Ltd. V/s DCIT Central (viii) Neeraj SingalVs. Assistant

M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

36 Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. Principal CIT V/s Shahlon Silk Mills Pvt Ltd dated (iii) 05.02.2018 (iv) (v) Decision of Honourable ITAT, Ahmedabad in case of Sulochanadevi A. Agarwal, Suratvs Department Of Income Tax (vi) Smt. Raj Rani Gupta V/s DCIT Central (vii) Mothers Pride Education Personna P. Ltd. V/s DCIT Central (viii) Neeraj SingalVs. Assistant

M/S CUMMINS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DEWAS vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No. 258/Ind/2015 is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. Nos.258/Ind/2015 : A.Y.2007-08 आ.अ.सं./I.T.A. Nos.232/Ind/2016 : A.Y.2010-11 M/S Cummins Technologies India Pvt.Ltd Dewas Pan – Aabct – 2018B :: अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs Acit 1(1) :: ""यथ" /Respondent Ujjain Shri Girish Agrawal "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By Shri K.G. Goyal राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By 10.1.2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख Date Of Hearing 19.1.2017 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख Date Of Pronouncement

disallowed. 3. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee has mainly argued on two counts, firstly that the assessee is following mercantile system of account and as per this system, there are revenue expenses which are accounted on accrual basis and the provisions by applying match concept. Here in this case, the assessee is claiming warranty

ACIT (CENTRAL UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S ARIHANT FUTURE AND COMMODITIES LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

1)(vii) to avoid unintended disputes over such claims. The only other requirement prescribed by section 36(2)(i) is that such debt or part thereof has been taken into consideration in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which the amount of such debt or part thereof is written off or of an earlier previous

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-UJJAIN, INDORE vs. M/S ARIHANT CAPITALS MARKETS LTD , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

1)(vii) to avoid unintended disputes over such claims. The only other requirement prescribed by section 36(2)(i) is that such debt or part thereof has been taken into consideration in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which the amount of such debt or part thereof is written off or of an earlier previous

THE ACIT, CENTRAL - UJJAIN, INDORE vs. M/S ARIHANT FUTURE & COMMADITIES LTD , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

1)(vii) to avoid unintended disputes over such claims. The only other requirement prescribed by section 36(2)(i) is that such debt or part thereof has been taken into consideration in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which the amount of such debt or part thereof is written off or of an earlier previous

JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MY,,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), DHAR

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shir Chandra Mohan Garg & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Jilasahakarikendriya Dcit-1(1) बनाम/ Bank Maryadit, Indore Dhar Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaaaj 0183 E Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, &Pankajmogra, Ars Revenue By Shriashishporwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.12.2022

disallowed by lower authorities. 5. The legal provisions as well as facts qua this addition can be fit in a narrow compass. On legal provisions, both sides agree that the assessee being a co-operative bank, is eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) on account of “Provision for bad-debt” as well as u/s 36(1)(vii) on account

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

vii) CIT vs Lakshmi Trust Co. 303 ITR 99 (Mad.). (viii) Shreenath Builders v. Dy. CIT [2000] 111 Taxman 142 (Mag.) 7.1 Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that even otherwise when the repayment was through RTGS the same is through banking channel and cannot be held as a violation of section 269T of the Act. He has pointed out that

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

vii) CIT vs Lakshmi Trust Co. 303 ITR 99 (Mad.). (viii) Shreenath Builders v. Dy. CIT [2000] 111 Taxman 142 (Mag.) 7.1 Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that even otherwise when the repayment was through RTGS the same is through banking channel and cannot be held as a violation of section 269T of the Act. He has pointed out that

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

vii) CIT vs Lakshmi Trust Co. 303 ITR 99 (Mad.). (viii) Shreenath Builders v. Dy. CIT [2000] 111 Taxman 142 (Mag.) 7.1 Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that even otherwise when the repayment was through RTGS the same is through banking channel and cannot be held as a violation of section 269T of the Act. He has pointed out that

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

disallowance made at Rs.2048173/- therefore, be kindly deleted. 4. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned lower authorities wholly wrong and opposed to fact that the society had paid Rs.561877 to Vijay Ramani who is the member of the society and therefore, there is violation of section 13(1

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

disallowance made at Rs.2048173/- therefore, be kindly deleted. 4. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned lower authorities wholly wrong and opposed to fact that the society had paid Rs.561877 to Vijay Ramani who is the member of the society and therefore, there is violation of section 13(1

THE DCIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. KALYAN TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

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

disallowances. The additions made by the Ld. A.O were partly deleted by Ld. CIT(A) and remaining were deleted by the Tribunal except for the addition of Rs.2,28,103/- sustained on account of additional claim of depreciation. 6. Subsequently Penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessee’s submissions were noted in the penalty proceedings