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

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

x) ABR Auto(P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2017) 51 CCH 0477(Deli-Trib (xi) SujataBhardwaj vs. DCIT (2017) 190TTJ 406 Jodhpur Tri. 7. On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee has surrendered undisclosed income which was not offered to tax in earlier assessment years and, therefore

M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

x) ABR Auto(P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2017) 51 CCH 0477(Deli-Trib (xi) SujataBhardwaj vs. DCIT (2017) 190TTJ 406 Jodhpur Tri. 7. On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee has surrendered undisclosed income which was not offered to tax in earlier assessment years and, therefore

M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

x) ABR Auto(P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2017) 51 CCH 0477(Deli-Trib (xi) SujataBhardwaj vs. DCIT (2017) 190TTJ 406 Jodhpur Tri. 7. On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee has surrendered undisclosed income which was not offered to tax in earlier assessment years and, therefore

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 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

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

JAI SINGH JADESA,INDORE vs. DCIT CPC ,BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance of late payment of PF/ESI under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the sole issue in the present assessment is related

KOMAL KUMAR JAIN,INDORE vs. DCIT,CPC BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

56,590/- vide order dated 29.04.2019. The Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs. 5,48,663 under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act for delayed payment of employees’ contribution towards PF and ESI. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assesse

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 ACIT, 5(1), INDORE vs. M/S. SYMBIOTIC PHARMALAB LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit 5(1), M/S. Symbiotic Indore बनाम/ Pharmalab Ltd. 385, Vs. Pigdamber, Rau, Indore (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aagcs9311 Revenue By Shri Ashima Gupta, Cit- Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Kapil Shah, Cas Date Of Hearing: 29.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.12.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal Of Revenue Pertaining To A.Y. 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Ii, Indore, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Dated 31.12.2015 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On M/S. Symboitic Pharmalab Ltd. Itano.373/Ind/2016 05.12.2011 By Acit, 5(1) Indore. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Restricting The Addition Of Rs. 2,60,50,027/- To Rs.3,74,195/- & Addition Made By The Ao 'After Disallowing U/S 35(2Ab) Deleted To The Extent Of Rs. 2,56,75,832/- On Account Of R&D Expenditure Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessing Officer Had Pointed Out That Disr Has Not Issue Report In Form 3Cl To Dgit Exemption & Even When No Satisfactory Clarification Was Given By The Assessee To The Ao.” “2.Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 9,97,920/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Foreign Exchange Loss Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessing Officer Had Pointed Out That The Loss Claimed By The Assessee In The Year Of Fluctuation In The Rate Of Exchange Or The Same Is Allowable Only In The Year' Of Repayment Of Such Loans.”

2,60,50,027/- is hereby directed to be restricted to Rs.3,74,195/-and the disallowance to the extent of -Rs.2,56,75,832/- is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed. 10. From perusal of the above detailed findings of fact by Ld. CIT(A) which remains uncontroverted by the Ld. Departmental Representative(DR), we find 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

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 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

THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. SANWARIA AGRO OILS LIMITED, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

X Rs.2,38,38,903 Rs.59,07,58,421 = Rs.662,662/- The Assessing Officer also estimated the other administrative expenses at an amount equal to one-half per cent of the average of the value of investment at Rs.11,919/- for earning exempted income. 11. On the basis of the above, the Assessing Officer made disallowance aggregating to Rs.14

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

56,983/- (-) Rs.54,23,189/-) was disallowed. Ld. A.O also observed that there were huge cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee during the month of February and March. Assessee claimed that the surrendered income of Rs.7 crores which was invested in the form of hundi matured during the year and the money so received (Principal and Interest