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

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

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

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 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, 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

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

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

TDS. Therefore, the first contention raised by Ld. AR is meritless and rejected. (ii) The second contention raised by Ld. AR is such that the impugned land remained unsold in current year and the assessee credited cost of same to Trading A/c by way of “closing stock”. Therefore, the debit entry of “purchase” is nullified by credit entry of “closing

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

TDS was already disallowed in return of income of the assessee. Thus, addition on account of interest on payment of indirect expense is not penal in nature and is an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Also the Ld. CIT(A) Faceless has not addressed the ground raised by assessee on account of disallowance

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

TDS and paid service tax where-ever it was necessary. The genuineness of expenditure incurred under the head sub-contracting cannot be doubted on the basis of some observation. There has to be some cogent evidences in this regard. In view of the above and decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. (supra

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