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

233 (Ahd-Trib) Order dated 11-11-2020. [In this case, addition u/s. 68 deleted on the ground Ariba Foods Pvt. Ltd & Ors. that opportunity of cross examination was not given. In this case too, the assessee had furnished the similar documentary evidences] ii) CIT vs. Metachem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 0160 (MP) iii) Nemichand Kothari

SAHARAYN UNIVERSAL MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

TDS was\nNot deductable\n466918841\n6017777180\nOffice rent and utility charges.\n38400000\nProfessional charges.\n5266086\n6064910523\n30% of the expenses of Rs.6064910523\nDisallowable u/s 40(a)(ia)\nNet loss returned\n1819473157\n(4622681240)\nPage 7 of 28\nSaharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited,\nITA No. 425/Ind/2024 - AY 2015-16\n4\nThe learned Assessing Officer has proceeded to tax the disallowances voluntarily

M/S AGARWAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,BHOPAL vs. DYPTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

233 of 2017 and others (10) for A.Ys 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 and learned CIT(A) considering the same deleted the additions observing as under: - “I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case as also the material placed on record, the various decisions cited by the learned AR and also perused the case record

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S AGRAWAL CONSTRUCTION CO., BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

233 of 2017 and others (10) for A.Ys 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 and learned CIT(A) considering the same deleted the additions observing as under: - “I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case as also the material placed on record, the various decisions cited by the learned AR and also perused the case record

S.R.DIGITAL AND BROADBAND PVT.LTD. ,INDORE vs. PCIT(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 S.R. Digital Tv & Pcit, Broadband Private Indore बनाम/ Limited, 335 Orbit Mall, A. B.Road, Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aavcs1165L Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, C.A. Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

TDS. Therefore, the issue of carry forward of losses was beyond the scope of scrutiny conducted by AO. Ld. AR submitted that this is a settled view taken by Indore Bench of ITAT in numerous orders that any issue which is not a part of limited scrutiny cannot form part of revision u/s 263. Therefore, the revision qua this issue

SHRI SURINDER SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT RANGE-3, INDORE

Appeals are allowed/statistically allowed in terms indicated above

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2010-11 &

233,720/- made towards adhoc disallowance of expenses out of BCC house maintenance. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT has erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- made out of adhoc disallowance of travelling expenses. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT has erred

SHRI SURINDER SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT- 3, INDORE

Appeals are allowed/statistically allowed in terms indicated above

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2010-11 &

233,720/- made towards adhoc disallowance of expenses out of BCC house maintenance. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT has erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- made out of adhoc disallowance of travelling expenses. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT has erred

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

Section 115BBE in respect of additions made in A.Y. 2017-18 and A.Y. 2018-19 5. Since the common issues are involved in various assessment years, it would be appropriate to adjudicate the various grounds taken by the assessee and the revenue in their cross-appeals for the subject assessment years, through this common Order. We will first take

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

Section 115BBE in respect of additions made in A.Y. 2017-18 and A.Y. 2018-19 5. Since the common issues are involved in various assessment years, it would be appropriate to adjudicate the various grounds taken by the assessee and the revenue in their cross-appeals for the subject assessment years, through this common Order. We will first take

ACIT 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SATISH JAIN, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed and the cross- objection of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

TDS. The assessee also made a detailed submission on the methodology of business and justification of commission-payment, which is reproduced by Ld. AO in assessment-order. The assessee pleaded before Ld. AO that the actual buyers of the products are farmers and the agents/brokers/representatives of assessee travel to various villages, contact the farmers to create demand, advertise products, complete