M/S. OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT PROSECUTION OFFICER,DEWAS vs. ACIT (CPCD) GAHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

260 to 262 & 285,286/Ind/2019 District Prosecution Officer आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: The above captioned bunch of 5 appeals are at the instance of respective assessees and are directed against the respective orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), (in short ‘CIT(A)’). As the issue raised in all these appeals are similar, these were

DISTRICT PUBLICPROSECUTION OFFICER,UJJAIN vs. THE ACIT CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

260 to 262 & 285,286/Ind/2019 District Prosecution Officer आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: The above captioned bunch of 5 appeals are at the instance of respective assessees and are directed against the respective orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), (in short ‘CIT(A)’). As the issue raised in all these appeals are similar, these were

M/S. OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT PROSECUTION OFFICER,DEWAS vs. ACIT (CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS), DEWAS

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

260 to 262 & 285,286/Ind/2019 District Prosecution Officer आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: The above captioned bunch of 5 appeals are at the instance of respective assessees and are directed against the respective orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), (in short ‘CIT(A)’). As the issue raised in all these appeals are similar, these were

M/S. OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT PROSECUTION OFFICER,DEWAS vs. ACIT (CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS), DEWAS

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

260 to 262 & 285,286/Ind/2019 District Prosecution Officer आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: The above captioned bunch of 5 appeals are at the instance of respective assessees and are directed against the respective orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), (in short ‘CIT(A)’). As the issue raised in all these appeals are similar, these were

THE CIVIL SURGEON CUM SUPRINTENDENT,JHABUA vs. JCIT(TDS), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

260 ITR 6a 1 (Raj ) I L31 Taxman 596 (Raj) held as"tLrc purpose oJ'leug of perualty uruder section 272A (2) (c) appears to be to put pressure on tLrc thoughtless and inefficient officers The Civil Surgeon Cum Superintendent,lhabua v. JCIT (TDS

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 9 is academic, thus making the assessment bad in law B. Since matter was set aside by ITAT for examination of agency PE only whether Ld. Assessing Officer failed to bring anything on record to establish that such a dependent agency PE existed in light of articles 5 & 6 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (in short DTAAs). 3. Brief

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 9 is academic, thus making the assessment bad in law B. Since matter was set aside by ITAT for examination of agency PE only whether Ld. Assessing Officer failed to bring anything on record to establish that such a dependent agency PE existed in light of articles 5 & 6 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (in short DTAAs). 3. Brief

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

260 ITR 366 (Guj)]. Section 11(4) is merely intended to tax income which is not accounted for in the books: it does not operate to charge a disclosed amount which is admittedly expended, for a purpose either charitable or non- charitable, but is disclos as business expenditure and consequently added back in computing the business income. [CIT v Birla

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

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

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

260 ITR 366 (Guj)]. Section 11(4) is merely intended to tax income which is not accounted for in the books: it does not operate to charge a disclosed amount which is admittedly expended, for a purpose either charitable or non- charitable, but is disclos as business expenditure and consequently added back in computing the business income. [CIT v Birla

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

TDS deducted by assessee. (vi) It is submitted that by making a payment of Rs. 14,65,992/- on account of rent, there is a hefty tax burden of more than 30% in the hands of payees whereas the assessee’s income was anyways exempt u/s 11. In such a situation, why would the assessee and the specified persons make

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS 2,62,79,228 14-09-2007 1,40,00,000 15-12-2007 5,00,00,000 15-12-2007 1,30,00,000 15-03-2008 1,63,00,000 18-09-2008 40,00,000 25-09-2008 17,00,000 .. 1,23,37,620 Total 13,76,16,848 3.02 Your Honour, in the instant

RNG CONSTRUCTION CO,INDRA NAGAR vs. DCIT-CPC, CPC-BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshirng Construction Co. Dcit-Cpc बनाम/ 14, Sector-A, Vs. Indira Nagar, Mandideep (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqfr9084B Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025

TDS. The CIT(A) allowed part-relief to assessee. (v) Being unsatisfied with the relief given by CIT(A), the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 3. The grounds raised by assessee are as under: Original Grounds in Form No. 36: “1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order

M/S. ALANKAR JEWELLWER,VIDISHA vs. THE ACIT- II, VIDISHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessees in

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2016-17 M/S. Alankar Jewellers Acit-Ii Nikasha Road, Vidisha Bhopal बनाम/ Vidisha Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aavfa1527D It(Ss)A No.205/Ind/2019 Assessment Year:2016-17 Acit-Ii M/S. Alankar Jewellers Bhopal Nikasha Road, Vidisha बनाम/ Vidisha Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aavfa1527D Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Respondent By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad:

260/- in AY 2014-15, Rs. 17,20,568/- & Rs. 21,60,500/- in AY 2015-16 an Rs .. 18,84,500/- & Rs. 3,07,500/- in AY 2016-17 are Deleted. Therefore, appeal on these grounds is Allowed. 23. From perusal of the above finding of ld. CIT(A) and the facts placed before

HUSAIN KOHAWALA,KUKSHI DISTT. DHAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF APPEAL, NFAC

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanihusain Kohawala, Cit (A), Saifiya Marg Bohra Mohalla, Nfac, Near Macchi Darwaza, Delhi Kukshi, Vs. Dhar (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bkrpk6392P Assessee By Shri Parag Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.10.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm:

section 143(3) making addition us 69A as unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 7416206 (All Credits including Transfers are considered as cash deposits). The Total addition was made considering two Bank Account i.e. SBI- Alirajpur Branch (Addition of Rs. 6348785) and SBI- Anandganj Mandi Branch (Addition of Rs. 1067421). 2. CIT(A) while making his observation regarding the Grounds

THE ACIT (CENTRAL), UJJAIN vs. M/S. VYANKTESH PLASTICS & PACKAGING (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

260 i) DFL is 425 As per the 632 i) As per the Financial & having huge audited balance & audited balance Statements of 261 owned funds sheet, before 633 sheet, before lender company of Rs.1438.77 making loan to making loan to for F.Y. 2015- lakhs which the assessee, the assessee, the 16 [A.Y. 2016- proves its the FVPL was NVPL

ACIT (CENTRAL) , UJJAIN vs. M/S. ARIBA FOODS (P) LTD., INDORE

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

260 i) DFL is 425 As per the 632 i) As per the Financial & having huge audited balance & audited balance Statements of 261 owned funds sheet, before 633 sheet, before lender company of Rs.1438.77 making loan to making loan to for F.Y. 2015- lakhs which the assessee, the assessee, the 16 [A.Y. 2016- proves its the FVPL was NVPL

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

260 i) DFL is 425 As per the 632 i) As per the Financial & having huge audited balance & audited balance Statements of 261 owned funds sheet, before 633 sheet, before lender company of Rs.1438.77 making loan to making loan to for F.Y. 2015- lakhs which the assessee, the assessee, the 16 [A.Y. 2016- proves its the FVPL was NVPL