SATYA NARAYAN AGRAWAL,VIDISHA vs. ACIT 4 (1), VIDISHA

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisatya Narayan Agrawal Acit, 4(1) 25, Station Road, Ganj Bhopal Vs. Basoda, Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaxpa 1865 E Assessee By Shri Arun Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22 .06.2023

section 69C applied only when the source of the expenditure incurred by the assesse is not explained. He has referred to the details of the various expenditures as extracted from the vouchers and bills of the expenditure incurred and submitted that most of the expenses are paid through banking channel and subjected to TDS

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS was further deducted. Moreso, the transactions were made through normal banking channels. Further that, the financial statements furnished by those lenders establishing the substantial turnover and other income earned by them and substantial transaction in its bank account in the business of polished diamonds, rough diamonds and other jewellery concerns. As the assessee furnished all the details in relation

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS was further deducted. Moreso, the transactions were made through normal banking channels. Further that, the financial statements furnished by those lenders establishing the substantial turnover and other income earned by them and substantial transaction in its bank account in the business of polished diamonds, rough diamonds and other jewellery concerns. As the assessee furnished all the details in relation

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS was further deducted. Moreso, the transactions were made through normal banking channels. Further that, the financial statements furnished by those lenders establishing the substantial turnover and other income earned by them and substantial transaction in its bank account in the business of polished diamonds, rough diamonds and other jewellery concerns. As the assessee furnished all the details in relation

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

69C of the Act. 41. Against this addition, the assessee approached first appellate authority. Before the ld.CIT(A) assessee reiterated submissions made during the assessment proceedings. Assessee further submitted that M/s.C-21 Town Planners P.Ltd. is a real estate developer; that all the transactions are related to expenses incurred on construction work done in the above said company and the transactions

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

69C of the Act. 41. Against this addition, the assessee approached first appellate authority. Before the ld.CIT(A) assessee reiterated submissions made during the assessment proceedings. Assessee further submitted that M/s.C-21 Town Planners P.Ltd. is a real estate developer; that all the transactions are related to expenses incurred on construction work done in the above said company and the transactions

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

69C of the Act. 41. Against this addition, the assessee approached first appellate authority. Before the ld.CIT(A) assessee reiterated submissions made during the assessment proceedings. Assessee further submitted that M/s.C-21 Town Planners P.Ltd. is a real estate developer; that all the transactions are related to expenses incurred on construction work done in the above said company and the transactions

THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS, obtaining of PAN of the Payee- transporter alone is sufficient and no further confirmation letters were required. It was also held that sections 194C(6) of the Act and Section 194C(7) of the Act are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS, obtaining of PAN of the Payee- transporter alone is sufficient and no further confirmation letters were required. It was also held that sections 194C(6) of the Act and Section 194C(7) of the Act are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS, obtaining of PAN of the Payee- transporter alone is sufficient and no further confirmation letters were required. It was also held that sections 194C(6) of the Act and Section 194C(7) of the Act are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

TDS on commission expenditure at Rs.3,12,513/- and disallowance of interest expenses at Rs.3,16,358/-. Income assessed at Rs.29,14,01,880/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging all the additions except for disallowance of commission expenses u/s 40A(1)(a) of the Act and partly succeeded. 31. Now the assessee is in appeal before

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

TDS on commission expenditure at Rs.3,12,513/- and disallowance of interest expenses at Rs.3,16,358/-. Income assessed at Rs.29,14,01,880/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging all the additions except for disallowance of commission expenses u/s 40A(1)(a) of the Act and partly succeeded. 31. Now the assessee is in appeal before

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

TDS on commission expenditure at Rs.3,12,513/- and disallowance of interest expenses at Rs.3,16,358/-. Income assessed at Rs.29,14,01,880/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging all the additions except for disallowance of commission expenses u/s 40A(1)(a) of the Act and partly succeeded. 31. Now the assessee is in appeal before

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

TDS on commission expenditure at Rs.3,12,513/- and disallowance of interest expenses at Rs.3,16,358/-. Income assessed at Rs.29,14,01,880/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging all the additions except for disallowance of commission expenses u/s 40A(1)(a) of the Act and partly succeeded. 31. Now the assessee is in appeal before

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

69C of the Act relating to the disallowance of interest on the unsecured loans, the assessee submitted that such interest was claimed by the assessee on the various unsecured loans taken by it from the aforesaid companies, and for which the AO has invoked the provisions of section 68 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

69C of the Act relating to the disallowance of interest on the unsecured loans, the assessee submitted that such interest was claimed by the assessee on the various unsecured loans taken by it from the aforesaid companies, and for which the AO has invoked the provisions of section 68 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that

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:

69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of undisclosed expenditure on basis of LPS-1 seized from the residence cum showroom at railway station road, Vidisha. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,18,16,751/- made by Assessing Officer on account

MOEBIUS TRADE P LTD, MUMBAI vs. THE ADDITIONAL CIT , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimoebius Trade Pvt. Ltd. Acit-Ii Resulting Company After Bhopal Merger Of Exotic & Vs. Speciality Fats Pvt. Ltd. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aahcm 4176D Assessee By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.12.2023

TDS is wrong and bad in law and is prayed to be deleted. 5. That the Learned CIT(A) in effect by dismissal of appeal, erred in not allowing the deduction u/s 80G of Rs. 85,020/- claimed on account of donation paid by the appellant. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case