M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

150\nAssessed income\n1,08,40,970 5,18,15,540 1,31,01,170\n(iii)\nAgainst quantum-assessments so made, the assessee carried matters\nin first-appeals before CIT(A) and contested the additions/\ndisallowances made by AO. The CIT(A) granted part-relief. Still\naggrieved, the assessee carried matters in next appeals before ITAT,\nIndore

ROHIT DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

150/-\nΑ.Υ. 2014-15\nIncome shown in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act\nRs.\n3,65,750/-\nIncome shown in the return filed in response to notice Rs.\n3,66,370/-\nu/s 153A of the Act\nAddition: as per para 10\nRs.\n2500/-\nTotal income assessed\nRs.\n3,68,870/-\nΑ.Υ. 2015-16\nIncome shown

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

penalty proceedings uls 271(1)(c) of the I..T. Act are initiated separately. 11. Per contra ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the following written submissions:- Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 The facts of the case are that the appellant is a society which was established on 04.12.1996 basically for development of downtrodden/poor people of society

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

penalty proceedings uls 271(1)(c) of the I..T. Act are initiated separately. 11. Per contra ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the following written submissions:- Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 The facts of the case are that the appellant is a society which was established on 04.12.1996 basically for development of downtrodden/poor people of society

ROHIT DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

150/-\nΑ.Υ. 2014-15\nIncome shown in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act\nRs.\n3,65,750/-\nIncome shown in the return filed in response to notice Rs.\n3,66,370/-\nu/s 153A of the Act\nAddition: as per para 10\nRs.\n2500/-\nTotal income assessed\nRs.\n3,68,870/-\nΑ.Υ. 2015-16\nIncome shown

ROHIT DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

150/-\nΑ.Υ. 2014-15\nIncome shown in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act\nRs.\n3,65,750/-\nIncome shown in the return filed in response to notice Rs.\n3,66,370/-\nu/s 153A of the Act\nAddition: as per para 10\nRs.\n2500/-\nTotal income assessed\nRs.\n3,68,870/-\nΑ.Υ. 2015-16\nIncome shown

ROHIT DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

150/-\nΑ.Υ. 2014-15\nIncome shown in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act\nRs.\n3,65,750/-\nIncome shown in the return filed in response to notice Rs.\n3,66,370/-\nu/s 153A of the Act\nAddition: as per para 10\nRs.\n2500/-\nTotal income assessed\nRs.\n3,68,870/-\nΑ.Υ. 2015-16\nIncome shown

ROHIT DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

150/-\nΑ.Υ. 2014-15\nIncome shown in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act\nRs.\n3,65,750/-\nIncome shown in the return filed in response to notice Rs.\n3,66,370/-\nu/s 153A of the Act\nAddition: as per para 10\nRs.\n2500/-\nTotal income assessed\nRs.\n3,68,870/-\nΑ.Υ. 2015-16\nIncome shown

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

150 (Trib.\nPune)\nd) Asstt.CIT vs. Shree Sai Vihar (2016) 28 ITJ 158 (Trib.Raipur)\ne) Waidhan Engg. & Industries P. Ltd vs. JCIT (2015) 26 ITJ 505\n(Trib.Jabalpur)\n(IV) Disallowance of Foreign Currency Fluctuation loss : ₹\n60,63,000/-\nWe submit that export sale invoices raised by the Co. are either discounted by\nthe bank or realized against Letter

C.I. FINLEASE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

u/s 271(1)(c) and consulted with a different\ncounsel for filing of appeals in penalty matters that the assessee came to know\nthat the counsel had not filed appeals against impugned orders. Immediately\nthereafter, the assessee arranged to file these appeals on 03.07.2023 alongwith\nappeals in penalty matters. Thus, there is no lethargy or negligence on the part

INCOME TAX OFFICER INDORE 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

271.\"\nAdditional evidences are normally not allowed so as to bring finality to\nassessment proceedings. However, this cannot be at the cost of natural\njustice. Therefore, Rule 46A(1)(b) & 46A(1)(c) give opportunity to appellant to\nproduce additional evidences in cases where an appellant is prevented by\nsufficient cause from producing such evidences. The rule is ended

INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

271.\"\nAdditional evidences are normally not allowed so as to bring finality to\nassessment proceedings. However, this cannot be at the cost of natural\njustice. Therefore, Rule 46A(1)(b) & 46A(1)(c) give opportunity to appellant to\nproduce additional evidences in cases where an appellant is prevented by\nsufficient cause from producing such evidences. The rule is ended

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisantosh Agrawal Pr. Cit-1 Mig-11, Mla Quarters Bhopal Vs. Jawahar Chowk Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ahkpa 1449E Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16 .08.2023

150, which is part of this order. Interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C is being charged as per law. Issue penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c).” 7. The assessment order is completely silent on the issue of claim of improvement of cost though the notice u/s 142(1) was issued by the AO wherein the assesse was asked to furnish

MUKESH SHAH ,NAGPUR vs. PCIT-2, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assesse is dismissed in the above terms

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimukesh Shah Pr. Cit 202, Silver Palm Apartment Indore Rpds Road, Laxmi Nagar Vs. Nagpur

section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Accordingly, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court extending the period of limitation due to Covid-19 pandemic, the appeal filed

SARSWATI VIDHYA PRATISHTHAN M.P ,BHUPAL vs. THE ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisarswati Vidhya Pratishthan Dcit (E) M.P. Bhopal Vs. 01, Harshwardhan Nagar Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadas0899M Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh & Shri Parth Jhawar, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2023

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated separately.” 5.1 Thus, it is clear that the AO has disallowed the claim primarily on two grounds, that this expenditure is incurred for organizing the Shivir/celebration and not proportionate to the normal expenditure incurred by the assessee on providing education to the students. The second objection

HARVIDER SINGH KALRA,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO1(1), UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Harvinder Singh Ito, Kalra, 1(1), बनाम/ Agar Road, Ujjain Ganesh Nagar, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Ahipk9285C Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.10.2023

150/- and on the strength of investment, the assessee claimed exemption u/s 54F. However, the AO denied benefit of exemption on the footing that the assessee had purchased two residential houses whereas section 54F permits purchase of only one residential house and prohibits purchase of second house. 5. Ld. AR does not have any quarrel with the legal provision that

M/S SUPREMO INDIA LTD ,INDORE vs. THE AIT CENTRAL 3, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

Penalty proceeding u/s 271AAC is also initiated separately. 6. The AO has applied the provision of section 69B of the Act for want of any supporting evidence regarding source of excess stock and nature of income which was not found recorded in the books of account at the time of survey. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed

M.P.PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO LTD,INDORE vs. THE DY CIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, All the four appeals of the revenue and one cross appeal of the assessee are dismissed

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

section 263 has dealt with this issue in para 4 to 4.3 as under: “4.Taxation of Revenue Receipt of Rs. 25,80,14,015/- shown as Capital Receipt by the assessee :- Adhering to the directions as mentioned above, notices u/s 143(2) &142(1) dated 11/3 / 2016 were issued and properly served upon. In response to the said notice Shri