PRASHANTI ENGINEERING WORKS P LTD,PITHAMPUR vs. THE ASST.DCIT ,CPC, BANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Under Section 139(1).

45,216/- Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by disallowing payment of Rs. 2,02,462/- of employees contribution to Provident Fund. The payment to PF is an expense and not income in the hands of the appellant and the same was paid well in time i.e. much before the due date

HONOURABLE PACKAGING P LTD ,DHAR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of The Income Tax Return & Can It Be Disallowed In The 143(1).

section 2 I.TA No. 348/IND/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No Honourable packaging P. Ltd. vs. DCIT 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2017-18. 2. The solitary issue involved in this appeal is late payment of PF and ESIC contribution by the assessee but deposited before

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

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P 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, 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

RADHIKA DEVCON PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. ITO-4(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Amember & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2015-16

disallowed is Rs.38,42,750/-. 2.1 Orders of the authorities below reveal that initially the assessment for the impugned year was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act making an addition of Rs.1,00,45

MUDIT KUMAR BAJAJ,UJJAIN vs. ITO-1(2), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed”

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aezpb2621P Assessee By Ms. Nupur Ladha & Shri Vaibhav Siroliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2024 O R D E R

45,738/- under section 40A(3) is deleted." 20 Mudi Kumar Bajaj 35. In case of Gurdas Garg vs. CIT(A), Bathinda (supra), the matter which came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, the facts of the case are pari materia to the instant case and the ratio of the said decision clearly applies

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

disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80IA,, 80-IAB, 80IB, 80-IC, 80-ID or section 80IE, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; ,or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total income

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

disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80IA,, 80-IAB, 80IB, 80-IC, 80-ID or section 80IE, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; ,or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total income

KESHAV KANUNGO,BHOPAL vs. ACIT2(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Keshav Kanungo, Acit, Flat No. A-603, Circle-2(1), Virasha Heights, Bhopal बनाम/ Near Danish Bridge, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Abvpk 2942 F Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2024

disallowance made by the AO of Rs. 91,57,000/- is restricted to Rs. 43,46,453/-, since the appellant was eligible for proportionate deduction u/s 54F to the tune of Rs. 48,10,547/-. The contention of the appellant that he has offered difference amount of Rs. 26,48,811/- in A.Y. 2018-19 is found acceptable since

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. MARAL OVERSEAS LTD, KHARGONE

In the result appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-4(1), Indore Maral Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Maral Sarovar, V& Po Vs. Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal

section 36, or, as required by or under any other law for the time being is force", The contribution of Rs. 1,45,87,125/- was not made by the assessee in approved gratuity found, it is being disallowed

JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 250(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and therefore the directions of the Ld. CIT(A) were incomplete ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the addition for cash loan advanced made at Rs. 3,00,45,585/-, addition that was made

THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE vs. JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 250(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and therefore the directions of the Ld. CIT(A) were incomplete ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the addition for cash loan advanced made at Rs. 3,00,45,585/-, addition that was made

ACIT, KHANDWA vs. M/S C.P. INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. , BURHANPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble V. Durga Rao & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. C.P. Industrial Income Tax, Vs. Products Pvt. Ltd, Khandwa Burhanpur (M.P) (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaccc1362 Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal. Sr. D.R. Assessee By S/Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ca’S Date Of Hearing 25.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2019 O R D E R

disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed the dividend amount received by it. For this preposition, reliance was placed on the following direct decisions:- S.No Name of Decision Citation CIT V/s Lakhani 01. 49 taxmann.com 257 (P&H) Marketing CIT V/s Cortech Energy P. 02. 45

WE WIN LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 5 (1) , BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 We Win Limited, Dcit-Central 5(1) (Formerly: Survevin Bpo Bhopal बनाम/ Services Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aakcs 9368 J Assesseeby Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2023

section 40A(3). Lastly, the Ld. AR submitted that there are innumerable decisions of Hon’ble Courts where it has been held that there is no authority in Income-tax Act, 1961 whereby the authorities can make lump-sum disallowance. Ld. AR placed reliance on a few decisions including the decision of ITAT, Indore in DCIT-1(1), Indore

SHRI KAILASH BHAGWAN CHOUDHARY,INDORE vs. THE ITO 2(3), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12

disallowance of deduction u/s 54B of the Act in respect of investment of Rs.12,02,424/- made in the improvement of agricultural land so purchased. It is contended that the expenditure was incurred for enabling the new asset to be used for agricultural purposes. Therefore, it is prayed that deduction u/s 54B of the Act may be allowed

IMRAN KHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO2 (2), BHYOPAL

In the result the issue No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradimran Khan Ito 2(2) S/O Sh. Gulab Khan H. No.35 Bhopal Village-Inayatpura Kolar Board, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ckqpk5708M Assessee By Shri Niranjan Purandar Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.01.2024

disallowed the deduction on the ground that the land is in the name of the son of the assessee, so the deduction cannot be allowed, specially when the land was purchased by Sh. Gurnam Singh out of the sale proceeds of agricultural land and since Palwinder Singh was bachelor and was not having any independent source of income was dependent

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

section 154 of the I.T. Act 1961, the4 same is being rectified accordingly.” 15. Thus, it is clear that there were mistake in computing surcharge and education cess consequently the interest u/s 234A, 234B and 220(2) were levied incorrectly. The last correction proposed by the AO in the order u/s 154 in respect of the interest