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

9 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) (a) CIT Vs. Cochin Co. (P) Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 230 (Kerala HC): Held: “3. We heard counsel. The short question that arises for consideration is whether, on the facts of this case, section 43(1) of the Income

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

9 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) (a) CIT Vs. Cochin Co. (P) Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 230 (Kerala HC): Held: “3. We heard counsel. The short question that arises for consideration is whether, on the facts of this case, section 43(1) of the Income

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

9 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) (a) CIT Vs. Cochin Co. (P) Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 230 (Kerala HC): Held: “3. We heard counsel. The short question that arises for consideration is whether, on the facts of this case, section 43(1) of the Income

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

9 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) (a) CIT Vs. Cochin Co. (P) Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 230 (Kerala HC): Held: “3. We heard counsel. The short question that arises for consideration is whether, on the facts of this case, section 43(1) of the Income

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

9 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) (a) CIT Vs. Cochin Co. (P) Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 230 (Kerala HC): Held: “3. We heard counsel. The short question that arises for consideration is whether, on the facts of this case, section 43(1) of the Income

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

9 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) (a) CIT Vs. Cochin Co. (P) Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 230 (Kerala HC): Held: “3. We heard counsel. The short question that arises for consideration is whether, on the facts of this case, section 43(1) of the Income

SHRI ARUN KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA,INDORE vs. ASSTT, DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Shri Arun Kumar Adit, Cpc, Shrivastava, Bangalore 9, Shakti Nagar, Vs. Kanadia Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aopps 9595 H Assessee By Shri Soumya Bomb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

section 43B, the effect of which is such that if the assessee makes payment upto due date u/s 139(1) for filing of return, the deduction is very allowable and no disallowance is called for. 9

THE ADIT CPC , BENGALURU vs. SUNDERLAL MOOLCHAND JAIN, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S Sunderlal Moolchand Adit, Cpc, Jain Tobacconist Private Bangalore Limited, Vs. 31, Kacchi Mohalla, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaecs 7779 P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

9), serial number 21(h) amount of deduction inadmissible in terms of section 14A etc, there is a specific requirement that the auditor has to mention whether the expenditure is admissible/allowable or not. However, so far as section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the audit report does not require the auditor to make a specific observation regarding “admissibility/inadmissibility

M/S VIJAY PULSES,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 4(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S. Vijay Pulses, Dcit, Cpc, 12, Sajan Nagar, Bangalore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaafv 9714 E Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

9), serial number 21(h) amount of deduction inadmissible in terms of section 14A etc, there is a specific requirement that the auditor has to mention whether the expenditure is admissible/allowable or not. However, so far as section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the audit report does not require the auditor to make a specific observation regarding “admissibility/inadmissibility

SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL,VIDISHA vs. ITO, VIDISHA, VIDISHA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2019-20 Subhash Chandra Ito, Agrawal, Vidisha बनाम/ Galla Mandi, Vs. Vidisha (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afrpa8769A Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri Jaideep Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2026

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.--Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; Page 4 of 10 Subhash Chandra Agrawal ITA No. 354/Ind/2025 – AY 2019-20 (vi) addition

SUCH MEDIA PUBLICATION P LTD ,CIT (A) NFAC DELHI vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

disallowing an adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) read with section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act in respect of delayed remittance of employees' contributions to Employee State Insurance (ESI) and Provident Fund (PF) for the assessment year 2018- 2019. 3. The ITAT, in this case, has noted that the Assessee failed to deposit contributions

KWALITY MOTEL SHIRAZ,BHOPAL vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEBER, SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTNT MEMBER Kwality Motel Shiraz 1, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal-462021

9), serial number 21(h) amount of deduction inadmissible in terms of section 14A etc, there is a specific requirement that the auditor has to mention whether the expenditure is admissible/allowable or not. However, so far as section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the audit report does not require the auditor to make a specific observation regarding “admissibility/inadmissibility

PRASHANTI ENGINEERING WORKS P LTD,PITHAMPUR vs. THE ASST.DCIT ,CPC, BANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Under Section 139(1).

9), serial number 21(h) amount of deduction inadmissible in terms of section 14A etc, there is a specific requirement that the auditor has to mention whether the expenditure is admissible/allowable or not. However, so far as section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the audit report does not require the auditor to make a specific observation regarding “admissibility/inadmissibility

ANIL PRAKASH TYAGI,JABAPUR vs. ADIT,CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of The Income Tax Return & Can It Be Disallowed In The Intimation Passed U/S. 143(1) Intimation.

9), serial number 21(h) amount of deduction inadmissible in terms of section 14A etc, there is a specific requirement that the auditor has to mention whether the expenditure is admissible/allowable or not. However, so far as section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the audit report does not require the auditor to make a specific observation regarding “admissibility/inadmissibility

M/S RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIK VISHWAVIDHALYA,HOSANGABAD vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 324 & 325/Ind/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vs. Dcit, Vishwavidyalaya, Cpc, Bhopal Bangaluru

disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80IA,, 80-IAB, 80IB, 80-IC, 80-ID or section 80IE, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; ,or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total income

M/S RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIK VISHWAVIDHALYA,HOSANGABAD vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 324 & 325/Ind/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vs. Dcit, Vishwavidyalaya, Cpc, Bhopal Bangaluru

disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80IA,, 80-IAB, 80IB, 80-IC, 80-ID or section 80IE, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; ,or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total income

SHRI JAGDISH KUMAR GULIA,BHOPAL vs. THRE ASSTT.DIRECTORE OF INCOME TAX ,CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

disallowing an adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) read with section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act in respect of delayed remittance of employees' contributions to Employee State Insurance (ESI) and Provident Fund (PF) for the assessment year 2018-2019. 3. The ITAT, in this case, has noted that the Assessee failed to deposit contributions

HONOURABLE PACKAGING P LTD ,DHAR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of The Income Tax Return & Can It Be Disallowed In The 143(1).

9), serial number 21(h) amount of deduction inadmissible in terms of section 14A etc, there is a specific requirement that the auditor has to mention whether the expenditure is admissible/allowable or not. However, so far as section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the audit report does not require the auditor to make a specific observation regarding “admissibility/inadmissibility