ACIT, KHANDWA vs. M/S JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK, , KHARGONE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit M/S. Jila Sahakari Khandwa Kendriya Bank, बनाम/ Khandwa Raod, Khargone Vs. M.P. (Appellant /Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaatj 0529 K Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain & Milind Wadhwani, Ars Date Of Hearing 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023

vii) or 1st limb of section 36(1)(viia) or 2nd limb of section 36(1)(viia) or 37(1) is a blind exercise. Needless to mention that each section has its own conditions, calculations and permissible limits; therefore the claim of assessee could be either fully allowable or allowable upto a certain limit but to arrive at such

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

9 appeals become infructuous. 15. Now we take up the remaining three appeals pertaining to penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act. In these appeals, the following common grounds have been taken by the assessee :- “(i) That, the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and in upholding the penalty levied by the learned

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

9 appeals become infructuous. 15. Now we take up the remaining three appeals pertaining to penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act. In these appeals, the following common grounds have been taken by the assessee :- “(i) That, the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and in upholding the penalty levied by the learned

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

9 appeals become infructuous. 15. Now we take up the remaining three appeals pertaining to penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act. In these appeals, the following common grounds have been taken by the assessee :- “(i) That, the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and in upholding the penalty levied by the learned

MILLION TRADERS BHOPAL P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance is made by the CPC while processing the return u/s 143(1) therefore, the assessee had no occasion to produce the supporting evidence to show that the TCS was collected by the Excise Department in respect of the purchase made and accounted by the assessee. Page 4 of 24 ITA No.124/Ind/2023 & ITANo.35/Ind/2023 Million Trader Bhopal Page

MILLION TRADERS BHOPAL P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance is made by the CPC while processing the return u/s 143(1) therefore, the assessee had no occasion to produce the supporting evidence to show that the TCS was collected by the Excise Department in respect of the purchase made and accounted by the assessee. Page 4 of 24 ITA No.124/Ind/2023 & ITANo.35/Ind/2023 Million Trader Bhopal Page

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

9(1) (vii) of the Act. The DRP also placed reliance in the case of HMS Real Estate (P) Ltd. 325 ITR 71(AAR) and DCIT vs. All Russia Scientific Research Institute and Cable Industry 92 TTJ 74(Mum). The DRP observed that Australian Company provided complete design, drawing and the assessee has not purchased designs & drawings but only agreed

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

9(1) (vii) of the Act. The DRP also placed reliance in the case of HMS Real Estate (P) Ltd. 325 ITR 71(AAR) and DCIT vs. All Russia Scientific Research Institute and Cable Industry 92 TTJ 74(Mum). The DRP observed that Australian Company provided complete design, drawing and the assessee has not purchased designs & drawings but only agreed

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

9(1) (vii) of the Act. The DRP also placed reliance in the case of HMS Real Estate (P) Ltd. 325 ITR 71(AAR) and DCIT vs. All Russia Scientific Research Institute and Cable Industry 92 TTJ 74(Mum). The DRP observed that Australian Company provided complete design, drawing and the assessee has not purchased designs & drawings but only agreed

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

9(1) (vii) of the Act. The DRP also placed reliance in the case of HMS Real Estate (P) Ltd. 325 ITR 71(AAR) and DCIT vs. All Russia Scientific Research Institute and Cable Industry 92 TTJ 74(Mum). The DRP observed that Australian Company provided complete design, drawing and the assessee has not purchased designs & drawings but only agreed

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowances ouf of various expenses claimed by the appellant whereas the remaining addition of Rs.8,83,283/- was made by invoking the provisions of S.14A of the Act. The AO while passing the assessment order also initiated penalty proceedings under S.271AAA of the Act. A copy of the assessment order has already been furnished by the appellant along with

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

disallowance made at Rs.2048173/- therefore, be kindly deleted. 4. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned lower authorities wholly wrong and opposed to fact that the society had paid Rs.561877 to Vijay Ramani who is the member of the society and therefore, there is violation of section 13(1

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

disallowance made at Rs.2048173/- therefore, be kindly deleted. 4. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned lower authorities wholly wrong and opposed to fact that the society had paid Rs.561877 to Vijay Ramani who is the member of the society and therefore, there is violation of section 13(1

M/S JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,MANDSAUR vs. THE DCIT, RATLAM

In the result Ground No.1 & 2 raised by the

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Dcit, Ratlam Bank Maryadit, Vs. Mhow-Neemuch Road, Mandsaur (M.P) (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaatj2383F Revenue By Shri Lalchand, Cit Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande,Ca Date Of Hearing 25.7.2018 Date Of 17.8.2018 Pronouncement

vii) "non-banking financial company" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (f) of section 45-I of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934);] Section 36(1)(viii) in respect of any special reserve created and maintained by a specified entity, an amount not exceeding twenty per cent of the profits derived from eligible

THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE vs. M/S KETI CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) LTD. , INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

disallowances. The additions made by the Ld. A.O were partly deleted by Ld. CIT(A) and remaining were deleted by the Tribunal except for the addition of Rs.2,28,103/- sustained on account of additional claim of depreciation. 6. Subsequently Penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessee’s submissions were noted in the penalty proceedings

THE DCIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. KALYAN TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

disallowances. The additions made by the Ld. A.O were partly deleted by Ld. CIT(A) and remaining were deleted by the Tribunal except for the addition of Rs.2,28,103/- sustained on account of additional claim of depreciation. 6. Subsequently Penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessee’s submissions were noted in the penalty proceedings

M/S. STI (INDIA) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessing officer has not mentioned the limb for which penalty has been levied. As regards the merits of the case he submitted that the disallowance/additions on which 4 STI(India) Ltd. ITANo.42/Ind/2017 penalty have been levied revenue authorities have not doubted the genuineness of the expenses and the disallowance are mostly made

M/S. NARMADA MALWA GRAMIN BANK,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-3(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit- 3(1) M/S. Narmada Malwa Gramin Indore Bank, बनाम/ 201, Arcade Silver, 56 Shops, New Vs. Palasia, Indore (M.P.) (Revenue ) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaccn2847F Assessment Year: 2008-09

disallowed was that the claim was made without making a provision in the books of accounts as required by the provisions of section 36(1)(vii)(a). On this point the ITAT for A.Y. 2007-08 upheld the finding of the AO and the CIT(A) that the claim of deduction cannot be in excess of the provision created