M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 2(1) , INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before us. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company was incorporated in India on 13.09.1996. The assessee provides software development and maintenance services from STPI and SEZ registered units. The primary activities of the assessee relate to provision

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before us. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company was incorporated in India on 13.09.1996. The assessee provides software development and maintenance services from STPI and SEZ registered units. The primary activities of the assessee relate to provision

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT-CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before us. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company was incorporated in India on 13.09.1996. The assessee provides software development and maintenance services from STPI and SEZ registered units. The primary activities of the assessee relate to provision

CUMMINS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P) LTD.,DEWAS vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicommins Technologies India Acit, Circle -1(1) Private Limited Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area No.2, A.B. Road, M.P. (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabct2018B Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved & Pinkesh Vakharia Ars Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

disallowance of claim of INR 72,992/- under section 10AA of the Act on the interest earned from fixed deposits kept with bank(s) by the Appellant as margin money for providing letter of credit and guarantee to the suppliers and other Government departments for registration like Sales Tax etc. 8. Deduction in respect of 'Education Cess on income

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S. TREASURE WORLD DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result both the Cross Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Treasure World Acit 4(1), बनाम/ Developers Pvt. Ltd, Indore Vs. Through Office Of The Official Liquidator, High Court Of Bombay, Bank Of India Building, 5Th Floor, M.G. Road, Indore (Pan: Abopb0352F ) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Acit 4(1), M/S. Treasure World बनाम/ Indore Developers Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Through Office Of The Official Liquidator, High Court Of Bombay, Bank Of India Building, 5Th Floor, M.G. Road, Indore (Pan: Abopb0352F ) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

Section 14A of the Act is not attracted to the extent of expenditure incurred for business purpose. He has submitted that this issue of investment made in subsidiary company is covered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd Vs. CIT 402 ITR 640. He has relied upon the order of A.O. Since nobody appeared

M/S. TREASURE WORLD DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result both the Cross Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Treasure World Acit 4(1), बनाम/ Developers Pvt. Ltd, Indore Vs. Through Office Of The Official Liquidator, High Court Of Bombay, Bank Of India Building, 5Th Floor, M.G. Road, Indore (Pan: Abopb0352F ) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Acit 4(1), M/S. Treasure World बनाम/ Indore Developers Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Through Office Of The Official Liquidator, High Court Of Bombay, Bank Of India Building, 5Th Floor, M.G. Road, Indore (Pan: Abopb0352F ) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

Section 14A of the Act is not attracted to the extent of expenditure incurred for business purpose. He has submitted that this issue of investment made in subsidiary company is covered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd Vs. CIT 402 ITR 640. He has relied upon the order of A.O. Since nobody appeared

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

Section 2(x) of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 defines 'package as 'abox, bottle, casket, tin-barrel, case, receptacle, sack, bag, wrapper or other thing in which an article of food is placed or packed Section 2(zh) of Food safety and Standards Act, 2006 defines "package" as 'a pre-packed box, bottle, casket, tin, barrel, case, pouch

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

Section 2(x) of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 defines 'package as 'abox, bottle, casket, tin-barrel, case, receptacle, sack, bag, wrapper or other thing in which an article of food is placed or packed Section 2(zh) of Food safety and Standards Act, 2006 defines "package" as 'a pre-packed box, bottle, casket, tin, barrel, case, pouch

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

Section 2(x) of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 defines 'package as 'abox, bottle, casket, tin-barrel, case, receptacle, sack, bag, wrapper or other thing in which an article of food is placed or packed Section 2(zh) of Food safety and Standards Act, 2006 defines "package" as 'a pre-packed box, bottle, casket, tin, barrel, case, pouch

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

Section 2(x) of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 defines 'package as 'abox, bottle, casket, tin-barrel, case, receptacle, sack, bag, wrapper or other thing in which an article of food is placed or packed Section 2(zh) of Food safety and Standards Act, 2006 defines "package" as 'a pre-packed box, bottle, casket, tin, barrel, case, pouch

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

Section 2(x) of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 defines 'package as 'abox, bottle, casket, tin-barrel, case, receptacle, sack, bag, wrapper or other thing in which an article of food is placed or packed Section 2(zh) of Food safety and Standards Act, 2006 defines "package" as 'a pre-packed box, bottle, casket, tin, barrel, case, pouch

THE ACIT 3(2), INDORE vs. M/S. SIMRAN DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ito-3(2), M/S. Simran Developers Indore 402, Mark Building, बनाम/ Saket Square, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Ackfs 1946 B Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 16.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

section 145 should be applied and profit should be determined at reasonable figure. All the payments made to the aforesaid three contractors were by account payee cheques. The department has not pointed out any instances where it can be proved that the cash come back to the appellant. The appellant has shown the net profit on total contract @ 21% which

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

X + IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “INDORE BENCH”, INDORE ] ] BEFORE SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.169&170/Ind/2016 WITH CROSS OBJECTION No.46 and 47/Ind/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09&2009-10 AND IT(SS)A.No.24/Ind/2017 Asst.Year : 2010-11 AND ITA No.25, 244, 309/Ind/2017& 441/Ind/2018 Asstt.Years

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

X + IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “INDORE BENCH”, INDORE ] ] BEFORE SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.169&170/Ind/2016 WITH CROSS OBJECTION No.46 and 47/Ind/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09&2009-10 AND IT(SS)A.No.24/Ind/2017 Asst.Year : 2010-11 AND ITA No.25, 244, 309/Ind/2017& 441/Ind/2018 Asstt.Years

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

X + IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “INDORE BENCH”, INDORE ] ] BEFORE SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.169&170/Ind/2016 WITH CROSS OBJECTION No.46 and 47/Ind/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09&2009-10 AND IT(SS)A.No.24/Ind/2017 Asst.Year : 2010-11 AND ITA No.25, 244, 309/Ind/2017& 441/Ind/2018 Asstt.Years

DR DESHMUKH MOTHER AND CHILD CARE ,UJJAIN vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Dr. Deshmukh Mother & Pr. Cit-I, Child Care, Indore बनाम/ 27, Nirman Nagar, Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aahfd3407H Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Negi, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2023

56,566/- and Rs. 1,24,110/- made to M/s Srijan Imagicraft Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Hoswin Incinerator Pvt. Ltd. respectively and still the AO has not made any disallowance. Page 8 of 13 Dr. Deshmukh Mother & Child Care Assessment year 2017-18 In this regard, Ld. Representatives of both sides agree that the AO has already made disallowance

M/S. ALANKAR JEWELLWER,VIDISHA vs. THE ACIT- II, VIDISHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessees in

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2016-17 M/S. Alankar Jewellers Acit-Ii Nikasha Road, Vidisha Bhopal बनाम/ Vidisha Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aavfa1527D It(Ss)A No.205/Ind/2019 Assessment Year:2016-17 Acit-Ii M/S. Alankar Jewellers Bhopal Nikasha Road, Vidisha बनाम/ Vidisha Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aavfa1527D Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Respondent By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad:

disallow credit of day to day cash balance. In the instant case, if the AO would have adopted opening balance as per audited books of accounts which were not rejected by him, there would remain no difference in cash found on the date of search. i. (ii) Declaration of additional income by Shrl Sanjay Jain:- Shri Shikhar Chand Jain during

M/S JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-II, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Jayganga Exim India Pvt. Dy. Cit, Limited Central-Ii, [Formerly Known As ‘Jay Jyoti Bhopal (India) Pvt. Ltd.’] बनाम/ 26, Col. Biswas Road, Ground Floor, Vs. West Side Flat, Kolkata (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacj 8822 E Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

x) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of ld. AO in charging the interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case- records perused