PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ANKIT CHIRAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above, leaving

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,MADAN GOPAL VYAS

147 ITR 11 (MP) Page 8 of 17 (Tax Case No.8/2024) the extent of ₹ 2,50,000/- on estimated cash-in-hand, which demonstrates judicious application of mind and fairness. He would finally submit that the findings of the ITAT are based on cogent reasoning, appreciation of material facts and settled legal principles under Sections 69A and 115BBE

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHREE CEMENT LIMITED

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,BHUWAN GOYAL

Section 148 on the basis that the appellant has wrongly debited the Education Cess in the profit and loss account. In other words, the appellant has claimed Education Cess as business expense. The addition of Rs. 6,30,40,519/- was made by Assessing Officer vide order dated 18.11.2016. The respondent failed in first appeal. The Tribunal quashed the initiation

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (TDS)

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

reassessment of such property taxes was made, and the amount of tax to be levied and collected was determined under sub-section (1). The proviso thereto required the Corporation to pay simple interest, at the rate of six percent per annum, on the amount of excess liable to be refunded under Sub-section (2), from the date of the decree

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires