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

disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules.” 3. Firstly we are taking ITA No.179/Ind/2016 for Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee company is engaged in the business of software development and exports. The assessee is an Indian entity of Computer Science Corporation which is a group of Multinational Companies. The original return of income was filed

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

disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules.” 3. Firstly we are taking ITA No.179/Ind/2016 for Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee company is engaged in the business of software development and exports. The assessee is an Indian entity of Computer Science Corporation which is a group of Multinational Companies. The original return of income was filed

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

disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules.” 3. Firstly we are taking ITA No.179/Ind/2016 for Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee company is engaged in the business of software development and exports. The assessee is an Indian entity of Computer Science Corporation which is a group of Multinational Companies. The original return of income was filed

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance of the amount deducted by PWD is not sustainable and, thus, deleted. We thus set aside the findings of Ld. CIT(A) on this count. Hence, assessee’s cross objection is allowed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed whereas cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed. ITA No.217/Ind/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 16 Surya Infraventure

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance of the amount deducted by PWD is not sustainable and, thus, deleted. We thus set aside the findings of Ld. CIT(A) on this count. Hence, assessee’s cross objection is allowed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed whereas cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed. ITA No.217/Ind/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 16 Surya Infraventure

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance of the amount deducted by PWD is not sustainable and, thus, deleted. We thus set aside the findings of Ld. CIT(A) on this count. Hence, assessee’s cross objection is allowed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed whereas cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed. ITA No.217/Ind/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 16 Surya Infraventure

THE DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL vs. M/S. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2011-12 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit- Indore Development Authority, बनाम/ (Exemption) Ida Building,7, Race Course Vs. Road, Indore Bhopal (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Years: 2012-13 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue)

73,65,419/- on account of 4/5th disallowance out of City Environmental Development and Preservation Expenses. 14. We observe that the primary object of the assessee is to implement development plan, prepare one or more town development schemes and develop of land in accordance with Rules made by the State Government, by virtue of section

M/S INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,INDORE vs. THE ACIT (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2011-12 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit- Indore Development Authority, बनाम/ (Exemption) Ida Building,7, Race Course Vs. Road, Indore Bhopal (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Years: 2012-13 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue)

73,65,419/- on account of 4/5th disallowance out of City Environmental Development and Preservation Expenses. 14. We observe that the primary object of the assessee is to implement development plan, prepare one or more town development schemes and develop of land in accordance with Rules made by the State Government, by virtue of section

M/S INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,INDORE vs. THE DCIT, 5(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2011-12 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit- Indore Development Authority, बनाम/ (Exemption) Ida Building,7, Race Course Vs. Road, Indore Bhopal (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Years: 2012-13 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue)

73,65,419/- on account of 4/5th disallowance out of City Environmental Development and Preservation Expenses. 14. We observe that the primary object of the assessee is to implement development plan, prepare one or more town development schemes and develop of land in accordance with Rules made by the State Government, by virtue of section

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 of the Act net amount of Interest paid of Rs. 1,30,16,839/- was also considered. It is submitted that the Ld. Assessing officer has grossly erred in considering the amount of Interest paid for computing the Addition as made u/s 14A by holding that assessee has diverted its interest bearing funds for earning Exempt

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. ARIHANT CAPITAL MARKETS LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

section 14A r.w.r. 8D cannot be made applicable in a vacuum i.e. in the absence of exempt income. Decision of Honorable Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd. [(2015) 372 ITR 0097 (Guj) E For the proposition that the disallowance is not tenable where the AO did not recorded proper satisfaction. Decision of Honorable High Court

M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S MAA UMIYA AGRITECH PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit 1(1) M/S. Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Indore 119, A.B. Road, Aloo Pyaj Mandi, Vs. Indore (Appellant / (Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn8230F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

73,187/-, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs.1,50,500/- towards payment to transporters which was also disallowed by the assessee and unsecured loan of Rs.12,50,000/- given in cash was also suo moto added back of Rs.8 laksh in the assessment year 2016-17. The AO has made no adverse comments so far as the other items

THE ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. TURQUISE INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT.LTD., NAGDA

In the result, against total disallowance of Rs

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

73,689/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act.” 2. As issues raised in both these appeals are common relating to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), for the purpose of adjudication we will take the facts for A.Y. 2008-09. 3. Brief facts as culled out from the records

THE ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL vs. M/S. BHASKAR INDUSTRIES LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

73,721/-. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee did not press ground no.2, hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 4. The Revenue has taken following grounds of appeal in which ground no.2 is taken as additional ground of appeal :- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case whether the CIT(A) was justified

M/S. BHASKAR INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS BHASKAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

73,721/-. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee did not press ground no.2, hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 4. The Revenue has taken following grounds of appeal in which ground no.2 is taken as additional ground of appeal :- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case whether the CIT(A) was justified