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

3% Rs. 1,01,528/- Rs. 34,85,807/- Interest Chargeable u/s 234A Rs. 28,640/- Interest Charged u/s 234A Rs. 10,160/- Short levy of interest Rs. 18,480/- Interest Chargeable u/s 234B Rs. 7,00,607/- Interest Charged u/s 234B Rs. 6,64,650/- Short levy of interest Rs. 35,957/- Interest Chargeable

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

3% Rs. 1,01,528/- Rs. 34,85,807/- Interest Chargeable u/s 234A Rs. 28,640/- Interest Charged u/s 234A Rs. 10,160/- Short levy of interest Rs. 18,480/- Interest Chargeable u/s 234B Rs. 7,00,607/- Interest Charged u/s 234B Rs. 6,64,650/- Short levy of interest Rs. 35,957/- Interest Chargeable

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

3% Rs. 1,01,528/- Rs. 34,85,807/- Interest Chargeable u/s 234A Rs. 28,640/- Interest Charged u/s 234A Rs. 10,160/- Short levy of interest Rs. 18,480/- Interest Chargeable u/s 234B Rs. 7,00,607/- Interest Charged u/s 234B Rs. 6,64,650/- Short levy of interest Rs. 35,957/- Interest Chargeable

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

40A(3) and Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act since the assessee did not make payment in cash to a single person on a single day in excess of Rs.20,000/- and that the assessee did not deduct TDS

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

40A(3) and Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act since the assessee did not make payment in cash to a single person on a single day in excess of Rs.20,000/- and that the assessee did not deduct TDS

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

40A(3) and Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act since the assessee did not make payment in cash to a single person on a single day in excess of Rs.20,000/- and that the assessee did not deduct TDS

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

TDS on salary payment. Assessee had produced only self made vouchers to justify the salary payments. (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating as Short Term Capital Gain as Long Term Capital Gain and hence giving relief of Rs. 44,81,373/- without considering the fact

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

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

40A(3) applies only to payments made on account of 'expenditure incurred' and the payment made purchase of stock-in-trade cannot be termed as 'expenditure incurred since money does not go irretrievably in such cases. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Gauhati High Court.” Page 5 of 11 Prahlad Das Goyal ITA No. 5/Ind/2025

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

CMM KETI JV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(3), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Cmm Keti Jv, Income-Tax Officer, 108, Shalimar Corporate 1(3), Center, Indore. बनाम/ 8-B, South Tukoganj, Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aakfc7524K Assessee By Shri Shashank Sharma, Ca & Shri Prakash Gupta, Ca Revenue By Shri Sanjeev H. Bhagat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2025

section 40A(2)(b). 3. The Hon’ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in adding flat rate of 2% of turnover on ad-hoc basis solely on assumption and presumption which is baseless and not justifiable.” 7. In Ground No. 2 & 3, the assessee has precisely challenged the addition of Rs. 1,03,58,079/- made

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

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

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

40A(3) _ Whether on facts, impugned revisional order did not require any interference - Held, yes [Para 16) [In favour of revenue) Therefore, in view of the above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the order dated 27.12.2016 for A.V. 2014-15 is erroneous in so far as it is also prejudicial to the interest of revenue on account

M/S. DIVINE CIETY PVT. LTD.,UJJAIN vs. THE DCIT 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed under

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meenaa.Y. 2010-11

3) on account of cash payment made for purchase of agricultural land stating is it stock-in- trade, therefore, we delete the addition. 9. With regard to the last issue, the Assessing Officer found that assessee has debited 17,99,483/- against a party with the name of Ajanta Barber Wires and Fabrication works under the head payment sight development

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