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

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 51,04,755/- made by the AO.” Ground No. 1 of AY 2009-10 and 2010-11: 4. These grounds are legal grounds and challenge the validity of Revenue’s action u/s 147. However, at the time of hearing, the Ld. AR representing the assessee prayed not to press these grounds. Accordingly

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 51,04,755/- made by the AO.” Ground No. 1 of AY 2009-10 and 2010-11: 4. These grounds are legal grounds and challenge the validity of Revenue’s action u/s 147. However, at the time of hearing, the Ld. AR representing the assessee prayed not to press these grounds. Accordingly

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 51,04,755/- made by the AO.” Ground No. 1 of AY 2009-10 and 2010-11: 4. These grounds are legal grounds and challenge the validity of Revenue’s action u/s 147. However, at the time of hearing, the Ld. AR representing the assessee prayed not to press these grounds. Accordingly

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 51,04,755/- made by the AO.” Ground No. 1 of AY 2009-10 and 2010-11: 4. These grounds are legal grounds and challenge the validity of Revenue’s action u/s 147. However, at the time of hearing, the Ld. AR representing the assessee prayed not to press these grounds. Accordingly

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 51,04,755/- made by the AO.” Ground No. 1 of AY 2009-10 and 2010-11: 4. These grounds are legal grounds and challenge the validity of Revenue’s action u/s 147. However, at the time of hearing, the Ld. AR representing the assessee prayed not to press these grounds. Accordingly

RITIKA JAIN,THANE vs. ITO(IT TP), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAVAN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiritika Jain, Cit (Appeals), बना A-504, Laxmi Residency Chs Nfac, म/ Ltd, Delhi Vs. Opposite Datta Mandir Check Naka, Wagle Estate, Thane

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal as and by way of Second appeal under the Act. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066243407(1) dated 29.06.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred

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

disallowing, allowable Deduction of Interest Income validly Claimed for Rs. 22867733/- by incorrectly interpreting provision of Section 80P (2) (d) and 80P(4

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

disallowing, allowable Deduction of Interest Income validly Claimed for Rs. 22867733/- by incorrectly interpreting provision of Section 80P (2) (d) and 80P(4

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

4) v/s M/s. Sugar chem AY 2011-12 ITA No. 2071/Mum/2016, held that if the assessee complies with the provisions of Section 194C (6) of the Act disallowance

THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

4) v/s M/s. Sugar chem AY 2011-12 ITA No. 2071/Mum/2016, held that if the assessee complies with the provisions of Section 194C (6) of the Act disallowance

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

4) v/s M/s. Sugar chem AY 2011-12 ITA No. 2071/Mum/2016, held that if the assessee complies with the provisions of Section 194C (6) of the Act disallowance

MP STATE CO-OPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal for A

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

section (4) of Sec. 80P was that the co-operative banks which were functioning at par with other banks would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(4) of the Act. Insofar the reliance placed by the Pr. CIT on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale

MP STATE COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ACIT BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal for A

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

section (4) of Sec. 80P was that the co-operative banks which were functioning at par with other banks would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(4) of the Act. Insofar the reliance placed by the Pr. CIT on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale

INFOBEANS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE, M.P.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed being devoid of

Bench: Sh. Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Pr. CIT erred in setting aside the order as passed by the assessing officer by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for re-examining the issue of disallowance

M/S VIJAY PULSES,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 4(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S. Vijay Pulses, Dcit, Cpc, 12, Sajan Nagar, Bangalore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaafv 9714 E Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

disallowance in terms of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va). M/s.Vijay Pulses Page 4 of 8 5. Regarding

ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. HARIOM PROPERTIES, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

section 69 and\nmade addition.\n6. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) reversed AO's action and deleted\naddition precisely accepting these reasons submitted by assessee:\n(i) All loans were taken through banking channel and the entries in Bank\nStatement were corroborated by Ledger A/cs of lenders. The assessee\nfiled A/c Confirmations of 11 lenders from whom impugned loans

THE ACIT CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S RAMDEV SUGARS P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit Central-1 M/S. Ramdev Sugars Pvt. Indore Ltd. बनाम/ 25, Nasia Road, Near Bus Stand, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aabcr 8097 G Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Deepak Mantri, Ar Date Of Hearing 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.03.2023

section 80-IA(4)(iv). Therefore, he had disallowed deduction. Ld. DR supported the assessment-order and requested to uphold