SMT ANJANA SINHA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

3) before calculating interest u/s 234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. 60. Ground No.1 raised in these appeals are general in nature which needs no adjudication. 61. Ground No.2 has been commonly raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 to Assessment Year 2013-14 challenging the addition

SMT. MANJU SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

3) before calculating interest u/s 234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. 60. Ground No.1 raised in these appeals are general in nature which needs no adjudication. 61. Ground No.2 has been commonly raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 to Assessment Year 2013-14 challenging the addition

SMT. ARCHANA CHANDAK,INDORE vs. ITO 3(2), INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal isallowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

3. The decision of Hon’bleLucknow Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Shri Kamal Kanvar Mishra (2013)[ITA No.398/LKW/2012 wherein it was held as under: 4. The decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Mehul V. Vyas v. ITO, Mumbai [2017] 80 taxmann.com 311 (Mumbai Trib.) wherein it was held as under: Thus, the pass book

SANDHYA SINGH,ROHIT NAGAR, BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(3) BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

3,62,68,600/- under section 69A, reiterating that one of the bank accounts did not belong to her and that the remaining credits were duly explainable, and also objected to the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B

BARKHA KHANDELWAL,AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1),INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Barkha Khandelwal Ito -3(1) Aggrieved Assesse Indore 1108, Pinnacle D Dreams, Tower -1 Vs. Near Bhawan Prominent School Pipliyakumar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ajnpk4150B Assessee By Shri Rakesh Gupta, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20 .09.2024

68, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. Page 3 of 13 ITANo.85/Ind/2024 Barkha Khandelwal 13. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action

M/S. M.P. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT EXCEMPTION , BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

3) for AY 2013-14 should not be allowed as a deduction or application\nof the income of the current year (AY 2014-15) & is hence also wrong in\nupholding the following:-\na) Tax demand of Rs 84,72,830/-\nb) Interest payable U/s 234A, 234B & 234C.\"\n2. The background facts leading to present appeal before us are as under

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 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

234B of the Act. 7. on the facts and circumstances or the case and in law, the ld. AO has erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act. 8. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. AO has erred in withdrawing the interest under section 244A

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

234B of the Act. 7. on the facts and circumstances or the case and in law, the ld. AO has erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act. 8. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. AO has erred in withdrawing the interest under section 244A

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT-CIRCLE 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

234B of the Act. 7. on the facts and circumstances or the case and in law, the ld. AO has erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act. 8. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. AO has erred in withdrawing the interest under section 244A

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1),R-5, INDORE

In the result ground raised on merit as well as legal ground raised for not

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2015-16

section 234A and 234B of the Act. 5. The appellant reserves her right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by her. 3. From perusal of the above grounds we find that following two common issues have been raised :- 4 Smt. Shweta Agrawal & Anr ITA No.281 & 279/Ind/2019 (i) Genuineness of Long Term Capital Gain from

M/S. SANJAY ONKARMAL AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO-5(3) RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result ground raised on merit as well as legal ground raised for not

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2015-16

section 234A and 234B of the Act. 5. The appellant reserves her right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by her. 3. From perusal of the above grounds we find that following two common issues have been raised :- 4 Smt. Shweta Agrawal & Anr ITA No.281 & 279/Ind/2019 (i) Genuineness of Long Term Capital Gain from

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS ANDBUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1 (2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

68,13,834 raising Ground No. 3 of A.Y. 2008-09,\nGround No. 3 of A.Υ. 2009-10 and Ground No. 10 of A.Υ. 2011-12\nrespectively.\nAt the first instance, we observe that learned Assessing office has not\nreferred to any incriminating material found during the course of search\nu/s.132 of the Act to establish disallowance

SHRI SOURABH JAIN,DEWAS vs. THE ITO, DEWAS

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12

234B, 234C is wrongly calculated and need to be amended”. 3. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual engaged in civil construction business as well as bill discounting. Return of income filed on 29.08.2011 declaring total income of Rs.2,13,562/-. Case selected for scrutiny. Notices

SMT. MANISHA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4 (3), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

section 234B and 234C of the Act. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by her. Hakumuddin Khambati & Anr ITA No.288 & 410/Ind/2019 3. Brief facts of the case as culled our from the records in the case of the assessee namely Shri Hakumuddhin Khambati is that

SHRI HAKIMUDDIN KHAMBATI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(4) RANGE-4, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

section 234B and 234C of the Act. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by her. Hakumuddin Khambati & Anr ITA No.288 & 410/Ind/2019 3. Brief facts of the case as culled our from the records in the case of the assessee namely Shri Hakumuddhin Khambati is that

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

234B of the Act on the assessed income since the addition to the returned income on account of Transfer Pricing adjustment is only a notional income and not actual earned income. 26. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, amend or delete one or more of the above grounds at any time before, or at the time

MEHI POWER TRANSFORMERS ,INDORE vs. DCIT-4(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimehi Power Transformers, Dcit-4(1), बनाम/ 74-J Industrial Estate, Indore Vs. Polo Ground, Indore (Pan: Aacfm0235H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sudhir Padliya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2025

68, 69 and 69A of the Act. 3. That Ld. CIT has erred in justifying the action of A.O. for charging interest as per provisions of section 234A of the Act ignoring the notification issued by CBDT for extending the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. 4. That Ld. CIT has erred in justifying the action

GULABSINGH RAGHUWANSHI HUF,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE 2(5) , INDORE

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

3)\n(4)\n(5)\n(6)\nThe appellant\nThe respondent\nCIT\nCIT(A)\nDepartmental Representative\nGuard File\nSd/-\n(PARESH M JOSHI)\nJUDICIAL MEMBER\nBy order\nSenior Private Secretary\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nIndore Bench, Indore", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee, Gulabsingh Raghuvanshi (HUF), filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. The case involved cash deposits made during