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. 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

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

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

BHAGWAT PRASAD MALVIYA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2014-15 Bhagwat Prasad Malviya Ito -3(1) 28, Crp Phatak Road Bhopal बनाम/ Bairagarh, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afbpm8998M Assessee By Shri N.D. Patwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.12.2025

sections 54B and 54F. A rectification notice u/s 154 was issued, and after considering the assessee's submissions, the AO passed a rectification order disallowing part of the claimed exemptions amounting to Rs. 1,12,73

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,INDORE vs. DCIT ( EXEMPTION CIRCLE) , BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

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

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,INDORE vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION CIRCLE), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

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

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,INDORE vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION CIRCLE), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

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

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,INDORE vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION CIRCLE), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

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

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

disallowing expenditure towards earning of such income, under section 14A, whereas, no expenditure was in fact incurred by the assessee towards earning such income. 25. The ld. AO has erred in computing interest u/s 234B of the Act on the assessed income since the addition to the returned income on account of Transfer Pricing adjustment is only a notional income

MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. ACIT- (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

section 40A(3). Thus, considering entire conspectus of case, we do not find any valid reason to make interference with the deletion of disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

section 40A(3). Thus, considering entire conspectus of case, we do not find any valid reason to make interference with the deletion of disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

section 40A(3). Thus, considering entire conspectus of case, we do not find any valid reason to make interference with the deletion of disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023