ACIT (CENTRAL) , UJJAIN vs. M/S. ARIBA FOODS (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

natural justice, the assessee-group cannot claim to cross-examine itself. 6 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the aforesaid addition of Rs. 8,80,000/-, while insisting that since the lender party was making some paper formalities, it is not a dummy concern

THE ACIT (CENTRAL), UJJAIN vs. M/S. VYANKTESH PLASTICS & PACKAGING (P) LTD., UJJAIN

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

natural justice, the assessee-group cannot claim to cross-examine itself. 6 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the aforesaid addition of Rs. 8,80,000/-, while insisting that since the lender party was making some paper formalities, it is not a dummy concern

THE ACIT (CENTRAL), UJJAIN vs. M/S. FAMOUS VANIJYA (P) LTD. , UJJAIN

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

natural justice, the assessee-group cannot claim to cross-examine itself. 6 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the aforesaid addition of Rs. 8,80,000/-, while insisting that since the lender party was making some paper formalities, it is not a dummy concern

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT- RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

TDS and DDT. As these are statutory liabilities of the assessee the same should have been discharged within the stipulated time. This interest has been paid as the assessee is in default. The assessee is not entitled to deduction of tax deducted at source per se, as such the interest paid for the default in payment of tax deducted/deductible

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PVT.LTD.,INDORE vs. THE JCIT, R-5 (PRESENT AO: DCIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

TDS and DDT. As these are statutory liabilities of the assessee the same should have been discharged within the stipulated time. This interest has been paid as the assessee is in default. The assessee is not entitled to deduction of tax deducted at source per se, as such the interest paid for the default in payment of tax deducted/deductible

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

TDS and DDT. As these are statutory liabilities of the assessee the same should have been discharged within the stipulated time. This interest has been paid as the assessee is in default. The assessee is not entitled to deduction of tax deducted at source per se, as such the interest paid for the default in payment of tax deducted/deductible

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

TDS and DDT. As these are statutory liabilities of the assessee the same should have been discharged within the stipulated time. This interest has been paid as the assessee is in default. The assessee is not entitled to deduction of tax deducted at source per se, as such the interest paid for the default in payment of tax deducted/deductible

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

TDS and DDT. As these are statutory liabilities of the assessee the same should have been discharged within the stipulated time. This interest has been paid as the assessee is in default. The assessee is not entitled to deduction of tax deducted at source per se, as such the interest paid for the default in payment of tax deducted/deductible

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

TDS and DDT. As these are statutory liabilities of the assessee the same should have been discharged within the stipulated time. This interest has been paid as the assessee is in default. The assessee is not entitled to deduction of tax deducted at source per se, as such the interest paid for the default in payment of tax deducted/deductible

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

TDS and DDT. As these are statutory liabilities of the assessee the same should have been discharged within the stipulated time. This interest has been paid as the assessee is in default. The assessee is not entitled to deduction of tax deducted at source per se, as such the interest paid for the default in payment of tax deducted/deductible

URBAN ADMINISTRATION AMD DEVELOPMENT,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), BHOPAL

In the result, the impugned order is set aside as & by way of

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidirectorate Of Urban Deputy बनाम/ Administrations & Development, Commissioner Of Vs. Nagar Palika Bhawan, 6 No.Bus Income Tax-Tds, Stop, R.S.Market, Bhopal S.O. Huzur, Bhopal(M.P.) (Tan: Bpldo1618B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv. & Ms. Apoorva Garg, Ca Revenue By Shri Anup Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R

natural justice. 6.7 On perusal of the above order, and on merits of the case also, it is observed that the DCIT, TDS

BALAJI PHOSPHATES LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCITACIT 1(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibalaji Phosphates Limited, Dcitacit 1(1), 305, Utsav Avenue, Indore Vs. 12/5 Ushaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadcb5654R Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 O R D E R

natural Justice. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Addl CIT/JCIT(A) was not justified in confirming to the twice disallowance of expenses Rs. 135450/- on which TDS

DHANDEEP CONCRETES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), UJJAIN

In the result we set aside the “Impugned order” &

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidhandeep Concretes, Ito -(Tds), बनाम/ 409-410, Jaipur Centre 4Th Bharatpuri, Vs. Floor, B2 Bypass Junction, Ujjain. Tonk Road, Jaipur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Priya Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

justice. The nature of payment made by the assessee have not been verified by the Ld. CIT(A) & flat rate of TDS

SURESH KUMAR,MANAS BHAWAN, RNT MARG, INDORE vs. ITO, BURHANPUR, INDORE

In the result we are of the considered

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisuresh Kumar, Ito –Burhanpur. बनाम/ 112, Manas Bhawan, Vs. 11 Rnt Marg, Indore (Pan: Eekps7728B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date Of 22.01.2026 Pronouncement आदेश/ O R D E R

natural justice. It therefore deserves to be set aside. It was submitted that the “Impugned Assessment Order” as well as “Impugned Order” are exparte. It was submitted that the ‘assessment proceedings’ commenced on 18.12.2019 with service of notice u/s 148 of the Act. It was submitted that the assessee is a non-filer. Assessee stays in small town Burhanpur

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

justice without affording appellant a reasonable opportunity for rebuttal of any document and opportunity of cross examination, if statement of some person has been relied on. I find sufficient merit in the contention of the appellant which is supported by the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs CCE (Civil Appeal

SAMARTHAN CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT,BHOPAL vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2018-19 Samarthan Centre For Dcit (Exemption) Development Support, Bhopal 36, Green Venue, बनाम/ Kolar Road Huzur, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaats3998P Assessee By Shri Pradeep Ambastha & Ashish Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2025

justice. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the impugned receipts aggregating to Rs. 1,88,17,012/-, even if categorized as "Receipts from Incidental Objects", were all clearly receipts from appellant trust's avowed objectives, as per consistent nature of activities for past all years and thus, in that sense

M/S. RITSPIN SYNTHETICS LTD.,PITHAMPUR vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), INDORE

In the result Ground No.1 of the assessee is dismissed and

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

nature which itself is incorrect because depreciation on road constructed side the factory is eligible @ 10% only. Accordingly, the disallowance is restricted to Rs.30 lacs only and appellant will get relief of Rs.55,57,917/-. The AO is 9 Ritspin Synthetics Ltd ITA No.01 & 89/Ind/2016 directed to recalculate the depreciation accordingly this ground of appeal is partly allowed”. 10. From

THE DCIT, -1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. RITSPIN SYNTHETICS LTD., PITHAMPUR

In the result Ground No.1 of the assessee is dismissed and

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

nature which itself is incorrect because depreciation on road constructed side the factory is eligible @ 10% only. Accordingly, the disallowance is restricted to Rs.30 lacs only and appellant will get relief of Rs.55,57,917/-. The AO is 9 Ritspin Synthetics Ltd ITA No.01 & 89/Ind/2016 directed to recalculate the depreciation accordingly this ground of appeal is partly allowed”. 10. From

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

nature. The same have not been considered by Hon'ble ITAT. 12. She submitted that in the case of Rajesh Kourani, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has considered the chargeability of fee u/s 234E before 1-6-2015 when Page 10 of 23 M/s. Supreme Transport Company ITA No. 914 & 917/Ind/2024 – AY 2013-14 Financial Year

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

nature. The same have not been considered by Hon'ble ITAT. 12. She submitted that in the case of Rajesh Kourani, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has considered the chargeability of fee u/s 234E before 1-6-2015 when Page 10 of 23 M/s. Supreme Transport Company ITA No. 914 & 917/Ind/2024 – AY 2013-14 Financial Year