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

36 M/s.Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya,Bhopal. 10. In view of above detailed discussion, there remains no iota of doubt that the appellant institution has never been eligible to claim exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab), 10(23C)(iiiad) and 10(23C)(vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961. The claim has been rightly rejected under the valid scope of section 143(1

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

36 M/s.Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya,Bhopal. 10. In view of above detailed discussion, there remains no iota of doubt that the appellant institution has never been eligible to claim exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab), 10(23C)(iiiad) and 10(23C)(vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961. The claim has been rightly rejected under the valid scope of section 143(1

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

ACIT, KHANDWA vs. M/S JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK, , KHARGONE

Accordingly Ld. AO made a mathematical working of 20% limit at Rs. 5,54,05,042/-; finally disallowed excess deduction of Rs

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit M/S. Jila Sahakari Khandwa Kendriya Bank, बनाम/ Khandwa Road, Khargone Vs. (Appellant /Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaatj 0529 K Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain & Milind Wadhwani, Ars Date Of Hearing 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023

disallowance ignoring the fact that they were provisions and not real expenditure; therefore the same were allowable to the extent of 20% of profit of business in terms of section 36(1)(viii

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

viii. ACIT vs. Indore Premier Cooperative Bank in ITA No.71/2015 dated 06.10.2015 5.5 From the record it is seen that the claim of the appellant u/s 36(1)(vii(a) was disallowed following the line of argument taken in the appellant's own case for A.Y. 2007-08 wherein identical claim was made by the appellant

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

viii. ACIT vs. Indore Premier Cooperative Bank in ITA No.71/2015 dated 06.10.2015 5.5 From the record it is seen that the claim of the appellant u/s 36(1)(vii(a) was disallowed following the line of argument taken in the appellant's own case for A.Y. 2007-08 wherein identical claim was made by the appellant

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

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 this mode of payment was included subsequently vide amendment however

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

In the result, appeal for A

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

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 this mode of payment was included subsequently vide amendment however

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

In the result, appeal for A

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

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 this mode of payment was included subsequently vide amendment however

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

36 Shri Jairam Education Society ITA No.90 & 548/Ind/2019 non maintenance of regular books of accounts, violations of provisions of Sec.13(1)( c) of the Act in as much as the trustees were paid enormous salary are all by way of passing reference having norelevance to whether or not the Assessee was pursuing education as its main object. There

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

36 Shri Jairam Education Society ITA No.90 & 548/Ind/2019 non maintenance of regular books of accounts, violations of provisions of Sec.13(1)( c) of the Act in as much as the trustees were paid enormous salary are all by way of passing reference having norelevance to whether or not the Assessee was pursuing education as its main object. There

THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE vs. M/S KETI CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) 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

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

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

disallowing said payments under section 40A (3)- Whether on facts, impugned revisional order did not require any interference- Held, yes [Para-16] [ In favour of revenue] 4.0 Therefore, in view of the above discussion I am of the considered opinion that the order dated: 06.01.2016 for A.Y. 2013-14 is erroneous in so far as it is also prejudicial

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowing entire deprecation claimed by appellant and secondly not justified in estimating NP @ 5%. Thus, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 2,04,60,184/- is Deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed.” 18. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the facts discussed above squarely establish that

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowing entire deprecation claimed by appellant and secondly not justified in estimating NP @ 5%. Thus, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 2,04,60,184/- is Deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed.” 18. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the facts discussed above squarely establish that