THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 147 of the Act and, thereafter, concluded that the losses obtained by the assessee on NMCE platform were contrived CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 losses and those losses were incurred by executing the synchronized trades dealing in illiquid commodities only. He also alleged that the losses were incurred with a specific intention to reduce taxable income by setting

SOM DISTILLERIES PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(3), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

Section 145 are applicable. The books of accounts are also not been rejected, hence the adhoc disallowance are wholly unlawful and unjustified. The assessee submits that the disallowance is neither justified nor lawful. From the perusal of the chart, the increase in mainly on account Page 32 of 54 Som Distilleries Private Limited I.T.A. Nos. 272 & 289/Ind/2023

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL , BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

Section 145 are applicable. The books of accounts are also not been rejected, hence the adhoc disallowance are wholly unlawful and unjustified. The assessee submits that the disallowance is neither justified nor lawful. From the perusal of the chart, the increase in mainly on account Page 32 of 54 Som Distilleries Private Limited I.T.A. Nos. 272 & 289/Ind/2023

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. MARAL OVERSEAS LTD, KHARGONE

In the result appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-4(1), Indore Maral Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Maral Sarovar, V& Po Vs. Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal

section 36, or, as required by or under any other law for the time being is force", The contribution of Rs. 1,45,87,125/- was not made by the assessee in approved gratuity found, it is being disallowed

ANDRITZ HYDRO P LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing

87,86,000 Disallowed AY 2007-08 90,30,000 Disallowed AY 2008-09 1,16,01,000 Disallowed AY 2009-10 (Pre- Merger) 64,18,000 Disallowed As on 31 December 2008 5,10,50,999 From above, we find that the Prithla Unit had created a provision of Rs. 5,10,50,999/- which was not claimed

VISHWARANJAN PRASAD SINGH,BHOPAL vs. DCIT ,CPC, BANGALURU

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

87,46,530.00 under section 143(1) of the act ignoring the fact that the disallowance is highly disputed and cannot

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

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 AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Ground No. 3 to 5: 14. In these grounds, the revenue has challenged the CIT(A)’s action of deleting

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

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 AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Ground No. 3 to 5: 14. In these grounds, the revenue has challenged the CIT(A)’s action of deleting

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

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 AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Ground No. 3 to 5: 14. In these grounds, the revenue has challenged the CIT(A)’s action of deleting

BANSAL PATHWAYS DAMOH KATNI P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOOPAL

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshibansal Pathways Damoh Dcit-1(1), बनाम Katni Private Limited, Bhopal / 15Th Floor Bansal One, Vs. Rani Kamlapati Railway Station, Bhopal

section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act. 10. The amount being disallowed is 12.20% of Rs.13,63,07,111/- = Rs.1,66,29,946/-”. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the 1st appeal

THE ACIT, -2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

disallowed qua three\nprojects undertaken by assessee, namely “D.K. Honey Homes”, “D.K.\nDevasthali\" and \"D.K. Cottage” for certain reasons as narrated in\nassessment-order. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first-appeals to CIT(A) and\nsucceeded. Now, the revenue has come in these appeals before us assailing\nthe orders of first-appeal passed by CIT(A).\n4.\nOriginally, the revenue/appellant filed

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

87,14,642/- instead of total disallowance of Rs. 4,36,25,687/- because the Ld. CIT(A) has not given exact working and basis of disallowable depreciation and the same cannot be worked out on the basis of figures available in various schedules and audit report filed electronically? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

87,14,642/- instead of total disallowance of Rs. 4,36,25,687/- because the Ld. CIT(A) has not given exact working and basis of disallowable depreciation and the same cannot be worked out on the basis of figures available in various schedules and audit report filed electronically? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

87,14,642/- instead of total disallowance of Rs. 4,36,25,687/- because the Ld. CIT(A) has not given exact working and basis of disallowable depreciation and the same cannot be worked out on the basis of figures available in various schedules and audit report filed electronically? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

87,14,642/- instead of total disallowance of Rs. 4,36,25,687/- because the Ld. CIT(A) has not given exact working and basis of disallowable depreciation and the same cannot be worked out on the basis of figures available in various schedules and audit report filed electronically? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

87,14,642/- instead of total disallowance of Rs. 4,36,25,687/- because the Ld. CIT(A) has not given exact working and basis of disallowable depreciation and the same cannot be worked out on the basis of figures available in various schedules and audit report filed electronically? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

87,14,642/- instead of total disallowance of Rs. 4,36,25,687/- because the Ld. CIT(A) has not given exact working and basis of disallowable depreciation and the same cannot be worked out on the basis of figures available in various schedules and audit report filed electronically? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

87,14,642/- instead of total disallowance of Rs. 4,36,25,687/- because the Ld. CIT(A) has not given exact working and basis of disallowable depreciation and the same cannot be worked out on the basis of figures available in various schedules and audit report filed electronically? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances