S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

53 of Paper-Book. He demonstrated that out of total expenditure of Rs. 2,70,708/- , major expenditure of Rs. 3,700 + 1,79,050 was on visits by Shri R.C. Gupta, President of assessee-company to Spain; followed by expenditure of Rs. 47,353 + 28,539 + 3,718 + 548 on visits by Mr. Amitva Sarkar to Istanbul/turkey

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

53 of Paper-Book. He demonstrated that out of total expenditure of Rs. 2,70,708/- , major expenditure of Rs. 3,700 + 1,79,050 was on visits by Shri R.C. Gupta, President of assessee-company to Spain; followed by expenditure of Rs. 47,353 + 28,539 + 3,718 + 548 on visits by Mr. Amitva Sarkar to Istanbul/turkey

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

53 of Paper-Book. He demonstrated that out of total expenditure of Rs. 2,70,708/- , major expenditure of Rs. 3,700 + 1,79,050 was on visits by Shri R.C. Gupta, President of assessee-company to Spain; followed by expenditure of Rs. 47,353 + 28,539 + 3,718 + 548 on visits by Mr. Amitva Sarkar to Istanbul/turkey

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

53 of Paper-Book. He demonstrated that out of total expenditure of Rs. 2,70,708/- , major expenditure of Rs. 3,700 + 1,79,050 was on visits by Shri R.C. Gupta, President of assessee-company to Spain; followed by expenditure of Rs. 47,353 + 28,539 + 3,718 + 548 on visits by Mr. Amitva Sarkar to Istanbul/turkey

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

53 of Paper-Book. He demonstrated that out of total expenditure of Rs. 2,70,708/- , major expenditure of Rs. 3,700 + 1,79,050 was on visits by Shri R.C. Gupta, President of assessee-company to Spain; followed by expenditure of Rs. 47,353 + 28,539 + 3,718 + 548 on visits by Mr. Amitva Sarkar to Istanbul/turkey

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

53 of Paper-Book. He demonstrated that out of total expenditure of Rs. 2,70,708/- , major expenditure of Rs. 3,700 + 1,79,050 was on visits by Shri R.C. Gupta, President of assessee-company to Spain; followed by expenditure of Rs. 47,353 + 28,539 + 3,718 + 548 on visits by Mr. Amitva Sarkar to Istanbul/turkey

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

Section 36(1) (vii) of the Act or not is debatable. Further, the above claim for deductions as made by the applicant was by following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Vithaldas H.Dhanjibhai Bardanwala (Supra). Thus, a debatable issue. Therefore, the same could not have been disallowed by 53

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

Section 36(1) (vii) of the Act or not is debatable. Further, the above claim for deductions as made by the applicant was by following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Vithaldas H.Dhanjibhai Bardanwala (Supra). Thus, a debatable issue. Therefore, the same could not have been disallowed by 53

MILLION TRADERS BHOPAL P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

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

1 of 24 ITA No.124/Ind/2023 & ITANo.35/Ind/2023 Million Trader Bhopal Page 2 of 24 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred and not justified in his findings that the denial of credit of TCS of Rs. 8226254 is lawful, such findings be held as unlawful and injudicious

MILLION TRADERS BHOPAL P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

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

1 of 24 ITA No.124/Ind/2023 & ITANo.35/Ind/2023 Million Trader Bhopal Page 2 of 24 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred and not justified in his findings that the denial of credit of TCS of Rs. 8226254 is lawful, such findings be held as unlawful and injudicious

COMPUTRONICS SYSTEMS (INDIA)P LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT CPC /ACIT1(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicomputronics Systems (India) Acit-1(1), Aayakar Bhawan Private Limited, Indore, Madhyapradesh Plant No.91, Schemeno.53, Pin 452001 Vs. Ratnalok Colony Near Rasoma Square, Indore, M.P -452001 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaaji0159C Assesseeby Shri Apurva Mehta, Ca, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Acit-Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.05.2023

53. The distinction between an employer’s contribution which is its primary liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers’ income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit M/S. Jila Sahakari Khandwa Kendriya Bank, बनाम/ Khandwa Raod, Khargone Vs. M.P. (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

53,85,000/-, which were not allowable. Hence, the case was re-opened by issuing show-cause notice dated 31.03.2017 u/s 148. Finally, the assessment was completed vide order dated 22.12.2017 u/s 147 read with section 143(3) after making a disallowance of Rs. 9,00,39,129/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee went in first-appeal and succeeded

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowances ouf of various expenses claimed by the appellant whereas the remaining addition of Rs.8,83,283/- was made by invoking the provisions of S.14A of the Act. The AO while passing the assessment order also initiated penalty proceedings under S.271AAA of the Act. A copy of the assessment order has already been furnished by the appellant along with

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

CATAYSER EDUVENTURES (INDIA)P LTD,INDORE vs. THE DCIT2(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

53,410/- as per provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(ii) and 143(1)(a)(iv) on account of disallowance

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

section 271(1)(c). (Ram Kumar Yadav) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Indore 19. From going through the above notice it is well evident that in the notice the specific charge/limb u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not mentioned. The Ld. A.O has not striked off one of the charge which is not relevant to the assessee

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

section 271(1)(c). (Ram Kumar Yadav) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Indore 19. From going through the above notice it is well evident that in the notice the specific charge/limb u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not mentioned. The Ld. A.O has not striked off one of the charge which is not relevant to the assessee