SHRI JAGDISH KUMAR GULIA,BHOPAL vs. THRE ASSTT.DIRECTORE OF INCOME TAX ,CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

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

24)(x) on account of disallowance of employee’s contribution received by assessee towards Provident Fund/Employees State Insurance Fund (PF/ESI) by way of deduction from salaries but not paid to relevant funds upto the due dates prescribed under PF/ESI laws. Aggrieved by such adjustment, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A). During first-appeal

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

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

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

MADHYA PRADESH COUNSALTANCY ORGANISATION LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S M.P. Consultancy Acit-2(1) बनाम/ Organization Ltd., Bhopal Vs. Block -2, 3Rd Floor Paryawas Bhawan, Arera Hills Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aabcm0090J Appellant By Shri M.K. Sharma, Ca Revenue By Smt. Vineeta Dube, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 .09.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Bhopal, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Dated 30.03.2017 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 23.-2.2016 By Acit- 2(1), Bhopal.

2(24)(x) r.w.s 36(1)(va) but was finally paid before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Details of the payments are placed in paper book pages 83 to 102. From perusal of the payment details we find that the alleged amount relating to ESIC & PF has been paid before

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

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

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 v CIT 301 ITR 45 (Rajasthan) (xv) PT Lashkari Ram V CIT 272 ITR 309 (Allahabad

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 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

x. 203 ITR 108 CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (Bombay H.C.) y. Mukesh Sharma v. CIT 25 ITJ 341 (Indore ITAT) 22. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the order u/s 263 of the Act passed by Ld. PCIT and further submitted that assessee was required to furnish complete details of the persons named in the hundis

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

x. 203 ITR 108 CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (Bombay H.C.) y. Mukesh Sharma v. CIT 25 ITJ 341 (Indore ITAT) 22. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the order u/s 263 of the Act passed by Ld. PCIT and further submitted that assessee was required to furnish complete details of the persons named in the hundis