ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

24(iia),4] Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that propagation of yoga by way of conducting yoga classes on a regular basis and in a systemized manner falls under category of ‘Imparting of education’. Corpus donation was to be excluded from total income. Higher amount from certain subscribers/donors in yoga camps

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

24 of 116 ITANo.794/Ind/2018 & IT(SS)A No.14 & 07/Ind/2022 Ritesh Jain & M.P. Agro Nutri Food Ltd. 6.3. Similar view have been taken by ITAT, SMC Bench in the case of Shri Satish Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Faridabad (supra). Following the above orders, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and quash the assessment order. Resultantly

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

24% is be reasonable. e) Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Vipul Y. Mehta-vs-ACIT in ITA No. 869/Ahd/2010 wherein it was held that loan taken from the relatives cannot be compared with bank loan because loan from the relatives are without security, while loan from the bank is secured. f) Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

24% is be reasonable. e) Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Vipul Y. Mehta-vs-ACIT in ITA No. 869/Ahd/2010 wherein it was held that loan taken from the relatives cannot be compared with bank loan because loan from the relatives are without security, while loan from the bank is secured. f) Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

24% is be reasonable. e) Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Vipul Y. Mehta-vs-ACIT in ITA No. 869/Ahd/2010 wherein it was held that loan taken from the relatives cannot be compared with bank loan because loan from the relatives are without security, while loan from the bank is secured. f) Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal

M/S. SANEE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT , BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Sanee Infrastructure Pr.Cit-2, Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Bhopal D-1, Machna Colony, 6 No Bus Stop, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aagcs8307M Appellant By Shri Arun Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit Date Of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01.06.2020 O R D E R

ix) CIT V/s Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd 345 ITR 135 (Delhi HC) (x) Gee Vee Enterprises V/s Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (DelhiHC) (xi) Bhushan Steel Ltd V/s ACIT ITAT A Bench Delhi (xii) CIT V Deepak Kumar Garg 299 ITR 435 (M.P) (xiii) CIT V Mahavar Traders 220 ITR 167 (M.P) (xiv) Smt. Renu Gupta

M/S. BHANDARI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

24,58,762/- - (excluding Rs. 8Cr.) Depreciation 1,15,11,494/- 2,11,23,096/- 4,40,85,592/- 4,40,85,592/- C ) Profit before 1,09,55,23 (1,35,30,926/- 3,64,88,3341- (5,52,61,171/- 8/- remuneration ) ) intere and to st the partners Profit after 2

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

ix) M/s Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Bench Delhi) (x) M/s Narayan Tatu Rane (ITAT Mumbai Delhi) 21. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions :- a. CIT v/s. Software Consultants 341 ITR 240 (Del.) b. CIT v/s. Anil Corporation 213 Taxmann 19 c. CIT v/s. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.) d. CIT v/s. Makal Suta Cotton

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

ix) M/s Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Bench Delhi) (x) M/s Narayan Tatu Rane (ITAT Mumbai Delhi) 21. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions :- a. CIT v/s. Software Consultants 341 ITR 240 (Del.) b. CIT v/s. Anil Corporation 213 Taxmann 19 c. CIT v/s. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.) d. CIT v/s. Makal Suta Cotton

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

ix) M/s Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Bench Delhi) (x) M/s Narayan Tatu Rane (ITAT Mumbai Delhi) 21. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions :- a. CIT v/s. Software Consultants 341 ITR 240 (Del.) b. CIT v/s. Anil Corporation 213 Taxmann 19 c. CIT v/s. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.) d. CIT v/s. Makal Suta Cotton

DANISH HEALTH CARE P LTD ,UJJAIN vs. PR CIT -1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Danish Health Care Pr. Cit-1, Private Limited, Indore बनाम/ 76/27, Maxi Road, Industrial Area, Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaecd5554F Assessee By Ms.Ruchira Negi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2023

2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va). Ld. AR fairly agreed that the assessee has not deposited employees’ contribution before due dates and in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), the same is disallowable. Faced with this situation, we agree that the PCIT has rightly invoked

SHRI YOGESH HOTWANI,MANDSAUR vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Section 153A, it was found that the assessee has offered Rs. 77,93,500/- as additional income in his return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 to 2012-13 as against undisclosed income of Rs. 3 crores admitted by Shri Shiv Kumar Hotwani on behalf of the assessee. It was explained to the AO vide letter dated

THE ACIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI YOGESH KUMAR HOTWANI, MANDSAUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Section 153A, it was found that the assessee has offered Rs. 77,93,500/- as additional income in his return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 to 2012-13 as against undisclosed income of Rs. 3 crores admitted by Shri Shiv Kumar Hotwani on behalf of the assessee. It was explained to the AO vide letter dated

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

ix) copy of TDS certificate for TDS made on interest paid to the parties. It was, therefore, submitted that the assessee firm duly discharged its onus that the loan was genuinely accepted through banking channel from the companies and discharged its onus to prove the transaction. It was argued that merely because the directors of the company could

M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT -CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE

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

ix) erred in giving the aforesaid relief while overlooking that the TPO demonstrated as to how the guarantee fee is chargeable @ 2.806%. Whereas, while adopting the rate of 0.53%, the basis adopted by CIT (A) is not specific and general. M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation vs. DCIT and DCIT Vs. Agrawal Coal Corporation T.P.A. Nos.601 & 602/Ind/2015 and 607 & 622/Ind/2015/A.Y.2009-10 & 10-11

M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT RANGE 1(1), INDORE

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

ix) erred in giving the aforesaid relief while overlooking that the TPO demonstrated as to how the guarantee fee is chargeable @ 2.806%. Whereas, while adopting the rate of 0.53%, the basis adopted by CIT (A) is not specific and general. M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation vs. DCIT and DCIT Vs. Agrawal Coal Corporation T.P.A. Nos.601 & 602/Ind/2015 and 607 & 622/Ind/2015/A.Y.2009-10 & 10-11

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P LTD., INDORE

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

ix) erred in giving the aforesaid relief while overlooking that the TPO demonstrated as to how the guarantee fee is chargeable @ 2.806%. Whereas, while adopting the rate of 0.53%, the basis adopted by CIT (A) is not specific and general. M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation vs. DCIT and DCIT Vs. Agrawal Coal Corporation T.P.A. Nos.601 & 602/Ind/2015 and 607 & 622/Ind/2015/A.Y.2009-10 & 10-11

THE DCIT-1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD., INDORE

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

ix) erred in giving the aforesaid relief while overlooking that the TPO demonstrated as to how the guarantee fee is chargeable @ 2.806%. Whereas, while adopting the rate of 0.53%, the basis adopted by CIT (A) is not specific and general. M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation vs. DCIT and DCIT Vs. Agrawal Coal Corporation T.P.A. Nos.601 & 602/Ind/2015 and 607 & 622/Ind/2015/A.Y.2009-10 & 10-11