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

36(1)(va) only when the employer deposits the contributions in the employees accounts on or before the due date prescribed under the Employees Provident Fund Employees State Insurance Act. In this case, admittedly, the contributions were deposited in the employees' accounts beyond the due date. The circumstance that the assessment order was made under section 143(1

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).

section 2 I.TA No. 348/IND/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No Honourable packaging P. Ltd. vs. DCIT 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2017-18. 2. The solitary issue involved in this appeal is late payment of PF and ESIC contribution by the assessee but deposited before

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

36(1)(va): “Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purposes of determining the "due date" under this clause; Section 43B: “Explanation 5.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY SHUKLA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Sanjay Shukla, Acit Central Circle 2, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit Central Circle 2, Shri Sanjay Shukla, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03..2022 आदेश / O R D E R

section 14A of the Income Tax, 1961 read with rule 8D. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of 21,33,556/- made by the Assessing officer on account of disallowance of various expenses. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SHRI SANJAY SHUKLA ,INDORE vs. ACIT,CENTRAL-CIRLE-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Sanjay Shukla, Acit Central Circle 2, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit Central Circle 2, Shri Sanjay Shukla, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03..2022 आदेश / O R D E R

section 14A of the Income Tax, 1961 read with rule 8D. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of 21,33,556/- made by the Assessing officer on account of disallowance of various expenses. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

THE DCIT, 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. BAJRANG AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09 Bajrang Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-5(1) Vikram Tower, 1St Floor, Sapna- Indore बनाम/ Sangeeta Road, Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aabcb3958N Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit-1(1) Bajrang Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. Indore Vikram Tower, 1St Floor, Sapna- बनाम/ Sangeeta Road, Vs. Indore (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aabcb3958N

va) of sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the Act, the Gauhati High Court while relying upon its earlier decisions in the matter of "CIT vs. Bharat Bamboo and Timber Suppliers" (1996) 219 ITR 212 and "CIT (19 of 20 ) [ITA- 55/2009 & ONE CONNECTED MATTER] vs. Assam Tribune", (2002) 253 ITR 93, held that contributions towards provident fund

M/S BAJRANG AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09 Bajrang Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-5(1) Vikram Tower, 1St Floor, Sapna- Indore बनाम/ Sangeeta Road, Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aabcb3958N Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit-1(1) Bajrang Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. Indore Vikram Tower, 1St Floor, Sapna- बनाम/ Sangeeta Road, Vs. Indore (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aabcb3958N

va) of sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the Act, the Gauhati High Court while relying upon its earlier decisions in the matter of "CIT vs. Bharat Bamboo and Timber Suppliers" (1996) 219 ITR 212 and "CIT (19 of 20 ) [ITA- 55/2009 & ONE CONNECTED MATTER] vs. Assam Tribune", (2002) 253 ITR 93, held that contributions towards provident fund

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

va) on account of non-payment of PF/ESI contributions by due date, and (c) disallowance u/s 43B on account of non-payment of service tax of Rs. 44,77,216/- and professional tax of Rs. 67,660/- by due date. Also, the AO did not allow full credit of TDS claimed by assessee. Page 2 of 9 RNG Construction

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.

section 36(1)(va), whether, it was employees or employer contribution.” SLP filed by the Income Tax Department was dismissed. 10. We, therefore, respectfully following the above judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, are of the considered view since the alleged payment has been paid before the due date of filing return of income. Providing u/s 139(1

M/S SURJEET AUTO PVT. LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Surjeet Auto Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Cit-2 बनाम/ 07, Lala Lajpat Rai Nagar, Bhopal Vs. Raisen Road, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aaocs9058H Appellant By Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.09.2019 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 U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Bhopal, (In Short ‘Cit’), Dated 09.03.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law & In Any View Of The Matter, The Ld. Pr. Cit Has Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act

section 36(1)(va) of the Act and interest on TDS was not disallowed. Ld. AO failed to examine these

THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

section 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

section 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

section 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

section 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

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

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 revisionary jurisdiction qua this issue

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

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

va) of the LT. Act, while completely ignoring para-5 of the CBDT's Circular No. 2212015 dated 11th December 2015. 2.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,50,000/- out of total expenses claimed on account of power & fuel expenses, while completely ignoring

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

va) of the LT. Act, while completely ignoring para-5 of the CBDT's Circular No. 2212015 dated 11th December 2015. 2.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,50,000/- out of total expenses claimed on account of power & fuel expenses, while completely ignoring