M/S DAULATARAM ENGINEERING SERVICES P.LTD,MANDIDEEP vs. THE ADIT/CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

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

24)(x) of the Act. In view of such a confession, Ground No. 1 and 2 do not have any merit and are dismissed. Ground No. 3: Page 2 of 12 Daulataram Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. I.T.A. No. 244/Ind/2023 Assessment Year -2019-20 4. This is a legal ground in which the assessee claims that the AO had no authority

M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., UNIT SATNA CEMENT WORKS,SATNA vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeals

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

section 5(2)(b) r.w.r.t. 9(1) of the Act in place of DTAA provisions and secondly the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in holding that the non-resident were having a Permanent Establishment in India without bringing any thing on record to establish that dependent Abench PE existed in light of the Article 5 & 6 of DTAA. 7. Ld. Counsel

M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., UNIT SATNA CEMENT WORKS,SATNA vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeals

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

section 5(2)(b) r.w.r.t. 9(1) of the Act in place of DTAA provisions and secondly the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in holding that the non-resident were having a Permanent Establishment in India without bringing any thing on record to establish that dependent Abench PE existed in light of the Article 5 & 6 of DTAA. 7. Ld. Counsel

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

X 44 days = 8,800/- restricted to amount of TDS – Rs. 6,000/-] were levied. Aggrieved by AO’s action, the assessee carried matters in first- appeals and claimed that prior to 01.06.2015, there was no power available to AO for charging late-fee u/s 234E. Vide order dated 08.12.2025, the CIT(A) disposed of assessee’s appeals and deleted

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

X 44 days = 8,800/- restricted to amount of TDS – Rs. 6,000/-] were levied. Aggrieved by AO’s action, the assessee carried matters in first- appeals and claimed that prior to 01.06.2015, there was no power available to AO for charging late-fee u/s 234E. Vide order dated 08.12.2025, the CIT(A) disposed of assessee’s appeals and deleted

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

SHIVGANGA DRILLERS P LTD,INDORE vs. CPC , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies.” The Ld. DR claimed that with the introduction of these amendments, it is very much clear that the due dates specified in section 43B shall not apply. According to the Ld. DR, the impact would be such that if the employees’ contributions are paid after the due dates under

HONOURABLE PACKAGING P LTD ,DHAR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of The Income Tax Return & Can It Be Disallowed In The 143(1).

tds (Tax 1422 1422 Double taxation Deducted at source) and tcs (Tax Collected at Source) 3 I.TA No. 348/IND/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No Honourable packaging P. Ltd. vs. DCIT Interest on 120 Nil Payment related delay payment of to indirect tax. taxes Delay 892 Nil Normal payment charges Business Expenditures 2.3. The CPC not considered the above facts

BAL BHAVAN SCHOOL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Bal Bhavan School, Dcit (Exemption), 1, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaaab3678G Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.06.2024

24 lakhs which worked out 1.86%. The ITAT, Mumbai accepted 1.86% as reasonable. Then, the rent of 0.21% paid by assessee is very reasonable, in fact much lower. (iii) That the same issue of reasonability of rent has been examined by AO in scrutiny-assessment for subsequent AY 2020-21. The AO has passed assessment-order u/s 143(3) dated

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

DR DESHMUKH MOTHER AND CHILD CARE ,UJJAIN vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Dr. Deshmukh Mother & Pr. Cit-I, Child Care, Indore बनाम/ 27, Nirman Nagar, Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aahfd3407H Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Negi, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2023

Section 44AA read with Rule 6F have been maintained or not?; (c) various crucial issues such as capital contribution by partners, sundry creditors and provisions of Rs. 62,87,322/-, unsecured loans of Rs. 19,90,000/-, addition to fixed assets of Rs. 61,09,191/-, etc. have not been verified by AO. Further, no details/documents in respect of addition

M/S. S.R. FERRO ALLOYS,JHABUA vs. THE PCIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

Section 263 of the Act. In such matters, to remand the matter/issue to the Assessing Officer would imply and mean the CIT has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed the Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question. 17. This distinction must be kept in mind by the CIT while exercising jurisdiction under Section

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

X + IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “INDORE BENCH”, INDORE ] ] BEFORE SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.169&170/Ind/2016 WITH CROSS OBJECTION No.46 and 47/Ind/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09&2009-10 AND IT(SS)A.No.24/Ind/2017 Asst.Year : 2010-11 AND ITA No.25, 244, 309/Ind/2017& 441/Ind/2018 Asstt.Years

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

X + IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “INDORE BENCH”, INDORE ] ] BEFORE SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.169&170/Ind/2016 WITH CROSS OBJECTION No.46 and 47/Ind/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09&2009-10 AND IT(SS)A.No.24/Ind/2017 Asst.Year : 2010-11 AND ITA No.25, 244, 309/Ind/2017& 441/Ind/2018 Asstt.Years

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

X + IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “INDORE BENCH”, INDORE ] ] BEFORE SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.169&170/Ind/2016 WITH CROSS OBJECTION No.46 and 47/Ind/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09&2009-10 AND IT(SS)A.No.24/Ind/2017 Asst.Year : 2010-11 AND ITA No.25, 244, 309/Ind/2017& 441/Ind/2018 Asstt.Years

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

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

2) (a) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment has been or is to be made to any person referred to in clause (b) of this sub- section, and the Assessing] Officer is of opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods, services or facilities