M/S M.P. MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

disallowed the benefit of section 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assesse on commercial basis. Similar for A.Y.2016-17 & 2017-18 the AO while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee by taking gross receipt and allowing the revenue expenditure as deduction

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

disallowed the benefit of section 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assesse on commercial basis. Similar for A.Y.2016-17 & 2017-18 the AO while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee by taking gross receipt and allowing the revenue expenditure as deduction

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

disallowed the benefit of section 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assesse on commercial basis. Similar for A.Y.2016-17 & 2017-18 the AO while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee by taking gross receipt and allowing the revenue expenditure as deduction

RECONNECT ENERGY SOLUTION P LT,BENGALURU vs. THE DCIT 4(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoreconnect Energy Solution Ltd. Dcit 1(4) No.22, Vk Kalyani, 7Th Floor Indore Vs. Sankey Road, Bengaluru (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aafcr 0074 H Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2023

disallowance 10 % of Travelling Expenses amounting to Rs.86,177 on adhoc basis. 3.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming 30 % of Salary Expenses amounting to Rs. 7,63,646 on adhoc basis under sec. 40a ia..” Page 1 of 12 Reconnect Energy solution P. Ltd. Page 2 of 12 2. Ground

DILIP BUILDCON LTD ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. Acit Central-1 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent /Revenue) Pan: Aaccd 6124 B Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Shri Yash Kukreja, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2022

disallowed the above claim made by the appellant stating that the activity of the appellant cannot be termed as manufacture or production as required by the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) and 32AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by relying heavily upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NC Budhraja reported

JYOTI GOYAL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed as mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Jyoti Goyal, Dcit, 18, Shyamla Hills, 1(1), बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abbpg3493P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the assessee the Ld. CIT(A), Delhi, was not justified in confirming disallowance of addition of Rs. 90,75,000/- invoking provision of section 56

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

56,07,199/- claimed u/s 80P(2). 4 The appellant carves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 2. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR of the assesse has submitted that the AO has disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of the interest

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

56,07,199/- claimed u/s 80P(2). 4 The appellant carves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 2. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR of the assesse has submitted that the AO has disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of the interest

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

56 of the Act, as rightly held by the Assessing Officer." Further, it is to be mentioned here that the interest income earned by the assessee society in the instant cases, cannot be held eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act either, as section 80P(2)(d) specified that the interest income eamed by the Co-operative

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

56 of the Act, as rightly held by the Assessing Officer." Further, it is to be mentioned here that the interest income earned by the assessee society in the instant cases, cannot be held eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act either, as section 80P(2)(d) specified that the interest income eamed by the Co-operative

ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S RUCHI J OIL PVT. LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

56 to 82 of P.B.) ii) Pr. CIT vs. Kulwantsingh Bhatia (2018) 33 ITJ 777 (MP) Held that “On due consideration of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, so also considering the fact that the ground mentioned in show-cause notice would not satisfy the requirement of law, as notice M/s. Ruchi

AKSHAY ACADEMY,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniakshay Academy Ito, Nfac 32 Kaimaidan Road, Delhi Khasgi Gagicha Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadta8987B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

56,19,050/- which is more than the prescribed monetary limit for claiming exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act and therefore, the said claim of the assessee cannot be allowed. During the assessment proceeding the assesse’s vide letter dated 30.01.2021 explained that the claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act was wrongly made however

SIDDHLAXMI SAKH SAHAKARITA MY,,INDORE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) W,INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowing the deduction under sub- clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 80P of the Act is under challenged. 3. We have heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. 4. The assessee is a credit co-operative society providing credit facilities to its members. The interest income from the surplus invested in short

M/S OREF SECURITIES PRIVATE LTD. ,MANDSAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.70/Ind/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Vs. Ito, Mandsaur. M/S.Oref Securities P.Ltd. 69, Agrasen Nagar B/H. Mid India Mandsaur.

56(2)(vii)(b) but. has discussed the section in detail We have raised ground no. 1 to keep this matter alive. If any adjudication is to be given on this issue, We may be given some time to give separate submission on this issue. Ground No.2 2.1 This ground relates to addition of Rs. 17750000/- by alleging that credit

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 5(1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

section 80IC of the Act. This ground is allowed.” 10. We have considered submissions of both sides. On a careful consideration, we observe that the assessee has been engaged in the same line of business and claiming deduction year after year regularly from AY 2008-09. We further observe that the assessing authorities have all along allowed the deduction during

MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD ,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT -2- (1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

section 80IC of the Act. This ground is allowed.” 10. We have considered submissions of both sides. On a careful consideration, we observe that the assessee has been engaged in the same line of business and claiming deduction year after year regularly from AY 2008-09. We further observe that the assessing authorities have all along allowed the deduction during

MS MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2 (1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

section 80IC of the Act. This ground is allowed.” 10. We have considered submissions of both sides. On a careful consideration, we observe that the assessee has been engaged in the same line of business and claiming deduction year after year regularly from AY 2008-09. We further observe that the assessing authorities have all along allowed the deduction during

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -5(1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT. LTD., BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

section 80IC of the Act. This ground is allowed.” 10. We have considered submissions of both sides. On a careful consideration, we observe that the assessee has been engaged in the same line of business and claiming deduction year after year regularly from AY 2008-09. We further observe that the assessing authorities have all along allowed the deduction during