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

disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before us. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company was incorporated in India on 13.09.1996. The assessee provides software development and maintenance services from STPI and SEZ registered units. The primary activities of the assessee relate to provision

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).

section 2 I.TA No. 348/IND/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No Honourable packaging P. Ltd. vs. DCIT 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2017-18. 2. The solitary issue involved in this appeal is late payment of PF and ESIC contribution by the assessee but deposited before

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 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

RADHIKA DEVCON PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. ITO-4(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Amember & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2015-16

disallowed is Rs.38,42,750/-. 2.1 Orders of the authorities below reveal that initially the assessment for the impugned year was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act making an addition of Rs.1,00,45,545/- to the returned income of the assessee of Rs.17,51,450/-, thus assessing the total income at Rs.1,17,96

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

96,92,760/- for the assessment year 2014-15 is arbitrary excessive and high under the facts and circumstances of the case as the entire income has been taxed without any deduction of expenditure incurred by the appellant.” 4 M/s.Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya,Bhopal. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return

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

96,92,760/- for the assessment year 2014-15 is arbitrary excessive and high under the facts and circumstances of the case as the entire income has been taxed without any deduction of expenditure incurred by the appellant.” 4 M/s.Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya,Bhopal. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return

JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MYDT,SEHORE, MP vs. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi / Bank Mydt, Acit-3(1), Bhopal बनाम/ Sehore, M.P. Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaalj0022F Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026

section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va). 14. Presently, the assessee is making a limited claim that the amount of Rs. 50,500/- is not fully on account of employee’s contribution, it also has Page 16 of 18 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Mydt, Sehore ITA No. 407/Ind/2024 – AY 2014-15 component of employer’s contribution which

THE ACIT 3(2), INDORE vs. M/S. SIMRAN DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ito-3(2), M/S. Simran Developers Indore 402, Mark Building, बनाम/ Saket Square, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Ackfs 1946 B Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 16.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

96,30,181/- in valuation of cost of goods sold/closing stock; and (iii) disallowance of Rs. 40,00,000/- u/s 40A(3). Being aggrieved, the assessee went in first-appeal and succeeded partly. Now, the revenue has come in this appeal assailing the order of first-appeal. 4. We proceed to adjudicate the grounds in seriatim. Ground

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

section 14A in terms of rule 8D and arrived at the said figure after multiplying it with the result of the average value of investments and over average value of assets derived by him. He thus determined the disallowance of Rs. 19,96

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

section 14A in terms of rule 8D and arrived at the said figure after multiplying it with the result of the average value of investments and over average value of assets derived by him. He thus determined the disallowance of Rs. 19,96

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

96,66,763/- 30,00,000/- 2.51% Total 17,41,92,174/- 47,50,000/- 2.72% The AO has not brought out any material on record which suggests that the appellant has incurred the expenses other than business purpose. In the case of International Forest Co. vs. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 721 (J&K) it is held that AO cannot

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

96,66,763/- 30,00,000/- 2.51% Total 17,41,92,174/- 47,50,000/- 2.72% The AO has not brought out any material on record which suggests that the appellant has incurred the expenses other than business purpose. In the case of International Forest Co. vs. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 721 (J&K) it is held that AO cannot

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

96,66,763/- 30,00,000/- 2.51% Total 17,41,92,174/- 47,50,000/- 2.72% The AO has not brought out any material on record which suggests that the appellant has incurred the expenses other than business purpose. In the case of International Forest Co. vs. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 721 (J&K) it is held that AO cannot

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

96,66,763/- 30,00,000/- 2.51% Total 17,41,92,174/- 47,50,000/- 2.72% The AO has not brought out any material on record which suggests that the appellant has incurred the expenses other than business purpose. In the case of International Forest Co. vs. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 721 (J&K) it is held that AO cannot

NAMTEL TECHNOLOGIES P LTD ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT(A) NFAC NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, this appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Namtel Technologies (P) Dcit-3(1), Ltd., Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaccn6502F Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2022

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Also the Ld. CIT(A) Faceless has not addressed the ground raised by assessee on account of disallowance of loss on sale of car of Rs.24250/- which is erroneous in nature.” 2. Brief facts are such that the assessee-company filed return of income of relevant

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 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with