DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

147/- on technical staff. 17. Further, there are responsibilities of the assessee with respect to damages for delay, employment of trained personnel, performance security, providing emergency medical aid, providing insurances, performing defect liability. Also, the assessee has to assume all kind of risk to property, human life, personal injury/death etc during the execution of contract. Besides this, assessee

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

147/- on technical staff. 17. Further, there are responsibilities of the assessee with respect to damages for delay, employment of trained personnel, performance security, providing emergency medical aid, providing insurances, performing defect liability. Also, the assessee has to assume all kind of risk to property, human life, personal injury/death etc during the execution of contract. Besides this, assessee

SHRI DILIP BUILDCON LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

147/- on technical staff. 17. Further, there are responsibilities of the assessee with respect to damages for delay, employment of trained personnel, performance security, providing emergency medical aid, providing insurances, performing defect liability. Also, the assessee has to assume all kind of risk to property, human life, personal injury/death etc during the execution of contract. Besides this, assessee

THED CIT ,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S DILIP BUILDCON LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

147/- on technical staff. 17. Further, there are responsibilities of the assessee with respect to damages for delay, employment of trained personnel, performance security, providing emergency medical aid, providing insurances, performing defect liability. Also, the assessee has to assume all kind of risk to property, human life, personal injury/death etc during the execution of contract. Besides this, assessee

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

147/- on technical staff. 17. Further, there are responsibilities of the assessee with respect to damages for delay, employment of trained personnel, performance security, providing emergency medical aid, providing insurances, performing defect liability. Also, the assessee has to assume all kind of risk to property, human life, personal injury/death etc during the execution of contract. Besides this, assessee

DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

147/- on technical staff. 17. Further, there are responsibilities of the assessee with respect to damages for delay, employment of trained personnel, performance security, providing emergency medical aid, providing insurances, performing defect liability. Also, the assessee has to assume all kind of risk to property, human life, personal injury/death etc during the execution of contract. Besides this, assessee

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 85,87,725/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 312/Ind/2018 – AY 2012-13: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 85,87,725/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 312/Ind/2018 – AY 2012-13: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 85,87,725/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 312/Ind/2018 – AY 2012-13: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 85,87,725/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 312/Ind/2018 – AY 2012-13: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 85,87,725/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 312/Ind/2018 – AY 2012-13: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances

RITIKA JAIN,THANE vs. ITO(IT TP), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAVAN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiritika Jain, Cit (Appeals), बना A-504, Laxmi Residency Chs Nfac, म/ Ltd, Delhi Vs. Opposite Datta Mandir Check Naka, Wagle Estate, Thane

147 r.w.s. 144 of the ACT and therefore, there is no obligation of payment of advance tax as per Clause(b) of Section 249(4) as held by the Page 11 of 18 Ritika Jain ITA No. 632/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2015-16 Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in case of M/s. Nine Globe Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT (supra) in para 4

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

250 2,00,27,787 & Services PL 23 Concert AABCC9445K 1,40,70,000 9,99,93,410 Tradelink P 39 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others Ltd 8. It is quite evident from the CIT(A)’s reasoning, that the materials clearly pointed to the share applicants’ possessing substantial means to invest in the assessee

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

250 2,00,27,787 & Services PL 23 Concert AABCC9445K 1,40,70,000 9,99,93,410 Tradelink P 39 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others Ltd 8. It is quite evident from the CIT(A)’s reasoning, that the materials clearly pointed to the share applicants’ possessing substantial means to invest in the assessee

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

250 2,00,27,787 & Services PL 23 Concert AABCC9445K 1,40,70,000 9,99,93,410 Tradelink P 39 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others Ltd 8. It is quite evident from the CIT(A)’s reasoning, that the materials clearly pointed to the share applicants’ possessing substantial means to invest in the assessee

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

147 ( S. C.). (vii) CIT vs. Sheri Atul Kumar Swami, 362 ITR 693 (Del) (viii) Tara Chand Jain, I.T.A.No. 2282/Kol/2014 ( I.T.A.T. Kol.) (ix) Gas & Power Investment Co., (Appeal No. I.T.A.No. 1118/Mum/2014 dated 5.2.2016 ( I.T.A.T. Mum.) 9. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee further contended that the above reasons were recorded by the AO on the basis of Balance Sheet

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

147 ( S. C.). (vii) CIT vs. Sheri Atul Kumar Swami, 362 ITR 693 (Del) (viii) Tara Chand Jain, I.T.A.No. 2282/Kol/2014 ( I.T.A.T. Kol.) (ix) Gas & Power Investment Co., (Appeal No. I.T.A.No. 1118/Mum/2014 dated 5.2.2016 ( I.T.A.T. Mum.) 9. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee further contended that the above reasons were recorded by the AO on the basis of Balance Sheet

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1) RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

147 ( S. C.). (vii) CIT vs. Sheri Atul Kumar Swami, 362 ITR 693 (Del) (viii) Tara Chand Jain, I.T.A.No. 2282/Kol/2014 ( I.T.A.T. Kol.) (ix) Gas & Power Investment Co., (Appeal No. I.T.A.No. 1118/Mum/2014 dated 5.2.2016 ( I.T.A.T. Mum.) 9. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee further contended that the above reasons were recorded by the AO on the basis of Balance Sheet