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

PRAVEEN AGRAWAL ,INDORE vs. DCIT 4(1) INDORE, INDORE

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

TDS & Disallowance for such default\n(iii)\nUnsecured Loans\n2.2 That as and by way of an assessment order bearing\nNo.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2021-22/1035802484(1) dated 22.09.\n2021 the total income of the assessee was computed at\nRs.2,20,33,310/- u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act, which is\nhereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”.\n2.3 That the assessee being

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

JAI BAJRANG CONTRACTOR,NAGDA vs. ITO-WARD 2(2), UJJAIN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

justice. To justify remand of this matter to AO, Ld. AR also pointed out that in Para 6 of assessment-order, the AO has also made following observation qua one of the additions amounting to Rs.9,57,542/-:\n\n“6. In view of the above discussion and on perusal of case records, it is found that the assessee

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

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

BMG CALCUTTAWALA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. AO CPC (TDS), ITO TDS(1) INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed\"

nature. The same have not been\nconsidered by Hon'ble ITAT.\n12. She submitted that in the case of Rajesh Kourani, Hon'ble\nGujarat High Court has considered the chargeability of fee u/s\n234E before 1-6-2015 when clause (c) was inserted to section\n200A(1) by the Finance Act, 2015. Hon'ble High Court also\nconsidered the decision

DISTT WOMAN & CHILD DEV OFFICER VIDISHA,VIDISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-2), BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

natural justice. 3. That the Learned Assessing Officer erred in holding that TDS 3 under Section 194C of the Income

DISTT WOMAN & CHILD DEV OFFICER VIDISHA,VIDISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-2), BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

natural justice. 3. That the Learned Assessing Officer erred in holding that TDS 3 under Section 194C of the Income

DISTT WOMAN & CHILD DEV OFFICER VIDISH,VIDISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS- 2), BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

natural justice. 3. That the Learned Assessing Officer erred in holding that TDS 3 under Section 194C of the Income

MILLION TRADERS BHOPAL P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

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

nature of assessee’s line of business, the entire business of shops though allotted in the names of Directors/Associates is accounted for in the books of assessee. The shops are obtained in the name of the directors/associates as per the regulations of State Excise Department. However the purchases and sales are accounted as the transactions of the assesse company

MILLION TRADERS BHOPAL P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

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

nature of assessee’s line of business, the entire business of shops though allotted in the names of Directors/Associates is accounted for in the books of assessee. The shops are obtained in the name of the directors/associates as per the regulations of State Excise Department. However the purchases and sales are accounted as the transactions of the assesse company

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

TDS on commission expenditure at Rs.3,12,513/- and disallowance of interest expenses at Rs.3,16,358/-. Income assessed at Rs.29,14,01,880/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging all the additions except for disallowance of commission expenses u/s 40A(1)(a) of the Act and partly succeeded. 31. Now the assessee is in appeal before

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

TDS on commission expenditure at Rs.3,12,513/- and disallowance of interest expenses at Rs.3,16,358/-. Income assessed at Rs.29,14,01,880/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging all the additions except for disallowance of commission expenses u/s 40A(1)(a) of the Act and partly succeeded. 31. Now the assessee is in appeal before

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

TDS on commission expenditure at Rs.3,12,513/- and disallowance of interest expenses at Rs.3,16,358/-. Income assessed at Rs.29,14,01,880/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging all the additions except for disallowance of commission expenses u/s 40A(1)(a) of the Act and partly succeeded. 31. Now the assessee is in appeal before