DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 40A(2)(b) in respect of interest paid on loan taken from some related parties. In fact, the Ld AO observed that there are four parties which belong to the promoter group of the appellant company who has advanced money in the appellant for working capital purpose on which the appellants has paid interest @ 16% to 18% which

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 40A(2)(b) in respect of interest paid on loan taken from some related parties. In fact, the Ld AO observed that there are four parties which belong to the promoter group of the appellant company who has advanced money in the appellant for working capital purpose on which the appellants has paid interest @ 16% to 18% which

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 40A(2)(b) in respect of interest paid on loan taken from some related parties. In fact, the Ld AO observed that there are four parties which belong to the promoter group of the appellant company who has advanced money in the appellant for working capital purpose on which the appellants has paid interest @ 16% to 18% which

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)

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 2. Accordingly, the Appellant humbly prays that the said disallowance be deleted.” 4. We first adjudicate Revenue’s appeal and thereafter Assessee’s Cross- objection. Revenue’s Appeal – Ground No. 1: 5. The issue involved in this Ground is the disallowance of expenditure on account of sales-commission

NAMTEL TECHNOLOGIES P LTD ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT(A) NFAC NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, this appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Namtel Technologies (P) Dcit-3(1), Ltd., Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaccn6502F Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2022

40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is unjustified and bad in law. Namtel Technologies P. ltd. Assessment Year 2015-16 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) faceless has upheld Assessing Officer’s disallowance of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- without appreciating the fact that the said disallowance

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act to the directors remuneration and held that this provision will not apply to the directors payment for holding that the payment is excessive or unreasonable in the absence of any material brought on record to demonstrate that the payment is actually excessive or unreasonable having regard to market rate for the goods, services

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act to the directors remuneration and held that this provision will not apply to the directors payment for holding that the payment is excessive or unreasonable in the absence of any material brought on record to demonstrate that the payment is actually excessive or unreasonable having regard to market rate for the goods, services

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act to the directors remuneration and held that this provision will not apply to the directors payment for holding that the payment is excessive or unreasonable in the absence of any material brought on record to demonstrate that the payment is actually excessive or unreasonable having regard to market rate for the goods, services

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT-1 (1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act to the directors remuneration and held that this provision will not apply to the directors payment for holding that the payment is excessive or unreasonable in the absence of any material brought on record to demonstrate that the payment is actually excessive or unreasonable having regard to market rate for the goods, services

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act to the directors remuneration and held that this provision will not apply to the directors payment for holding that the payment is excessive or unreasonable in the absence of any material brought on record to demonstrate that the payment is actually excessive or unreasonable having regard to market rate for the goods, services

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in raising the G.P. from 10.97% to 12% and hence giving relief of Rs. 4,99,63,000/- in respect of disallowance under the head salary. Without considering the fact that assessee had not produced identity proof of employees and also

THE ACIT 3(2), INDORE vs. M/S. SIMRAN DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ito-3(2), M/S. Simran Developers Indore 402, Mark Building, बनाम/ Saket Square, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Ackfs 1946 B Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 16.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by making cash payment in excess of Rs. 20,000/-. (b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that the seller Shri Jineshwar Lallulalji Jain was well known to the assessee and the seller was maintaining regular bank account. (c) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the decision

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

2 Blasting expenses 13,39,555 3 Site expenses 75,23,136 4 Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the 8,12,755 Act 5 Employee remuneration and benefit 18,91,316 6 Disallowance under Section 40a(ia) of the 16,01,614 Act 7 Communication, conveyance, water & electricity, office running & maintenance, 12,37,512 travelling expenses etc. Total

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

2 Blasting expenses 13,39,555 3 Site expenses 75,23,136 4 Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the 8,12,755 Act 5 Employee remuneration and benefit 18,91,316 6 Disallowance under Section 40a(ia) of the 16,01,614 Act 7 Communication, conveyance, water & electricity, office running & maintenance, 12,37,512 travelling expenses etc. Total

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

2 Blasting expenses 13,39,555 3 Site expenses 75,23,136 4 Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the 8,12,755 Act 5 Employee remuneration and benefit 18,91,316 6 Disallowance under Section 40a(ia) of the 16,01,614 Act 7 Communication, conveyance, water & electricity, office running & maintenance, 12,37,512 travelling expenses etc. Total

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

40A (3) of the income tax act. It is apparent from the audit objection filed before us at page number 30 of the paper book that the case of the assessee was selected for the scrutiny to verify only the cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee. The issue before us is whether assessing officer has made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S. IDEAL ASHIYANA PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit-2(1) M/S Ideal Ashiyana Indore Private Ltd., Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aadci 0029 F Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Final Hearing 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.12.2022

section 40A(3). Now this reply of assessee is not acceptable because it has not furnished any details of agent not even the name of agent, or copy of purchase deed or bank statement where it could be seen that any payment has been made to such particular agent. There is no mention of any payment to such an agent

DCIT 3 (1), BHOPAL vs. M/S NARMADA SWITCHGEAR P LTD , BHOPAL

Accordingly, this ground is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit-3(1) M/S Narmada Switchgear Bhopal Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Plot No.3, Industrial Estate, Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aabcn0635N Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2023

2,81,93,202/- to the total income of the appellant. 5.1 The appellant submitted that the Ld. A.O. has compared the percentage increase in expenses with the previous year. This is not correct method. It should be compared in relation to sales. It was explained to the Ld. A.O. that the appellant had been passing through a lean phase

PRAHLAD DAS GOYAL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT - 1(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2016-17 Prahlad Das Goyal, Dcit/Acit 1(1) 18, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abbpg3494L Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.08.2025

2 of 11 Prahlad Das Goyal ITA No. 5/Ind/2025 – AY 2016-17 4.1 This payment was made during current year against purchase of a land admeasuring 1.93 acres located at Badwai. We adjudicate below the rival contentions raised by both sides: (i) The first contention raised by Ld. AR is that the purchase of said land was registered through sale