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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

40A(2)(b). observed that the appellant has interest related @ 18% whereas to other parties 12% accordingly allowed the paid related parties 12% and disallowed the (ACIT vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd. remaining interest. The appellant submitted had borrowed funds from banks and parties purpose of development its township project on which total interest

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

40A(2)(b). observed that the appellant has interest related @ 18% whereas to other parties 12% accordingly allowed the paid related parties 12% and disallowed the (ACIT vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd. remaining interest. The appellant submitted had borrowed funds from banks and parties purpose of development its township project on which total interest

KHANDWA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. ACIT, KHANDWA, KHANDWA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2017-18 Khandwa Industries Pvt. Ld., Acit, G-2 Amans Corner, Khandwa बनाम/ 301, Goyal Vihar, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aadck4103G Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025

Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The Appellant prays the said arbitrary disallowance be directed to be deleted. Page 1 of 8 Khandwa Industries Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 309/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18 2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate and ought to have held that the AO has not perused the audit report correctly and neither questioned the reasonableness

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

bogus LTCG, Penny stock companies available with this office the name of Vishvjyoti Trading Ltd. appears in the list. Therefore, the credentials of this company are doubtful and complete investigation is required to be made in respect of transactions of the assessee with this company also. In this connection, I have also issue a letter to Pr. DIT (Inv.), Mumbai

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

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

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

40A(2)(a) of the Act which reads as follows:- (2) (a) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment has been or is to be made to any person referred to in clause (b) of this sub- section, and the Assessing] Officer is of opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard

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

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

40A(2)(a) of the Act which reads as follows:- (2) (a) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment has been or is to be made to any person referred to in clause (b) of this sub- section, and the Assessing] Officer is of opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard

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

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

40A(2)(a) of the Act which reads as follows:- (2) (a) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment has been or is to be made to any person referred to in clause (b) of this sub- section, and the Assessing] Officer is of opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard

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

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

40A(2)(a) of the Act which reads as follows:- (2) (a) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment has been or is to be made to any person referred to in clause (b) of this sub- section, and the Assessing] Officer is of opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard

RECONNECT ENERGY SOLUTION P LT,BENGALURU vs. THE DCIT 4(1) INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoreconnect Energy Solution Ltd. Dcit 1(4) No.22, Vk Kalyani, 7Th Floor Indore Vs. Sankey Road, Bengaluru (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aafcr 0074 H Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2023

40a ia..” Page 1 of 12 Reconnect Energy solution P. Ltd. Page 2 of 12 2. Ground no.1 is regarding the addition made u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of providing service to the Renewable Energy entities. The assessee filed its return of income on 16.10.2016 declaring loss of Rs.40

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

section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 providing for admissibility of electronic records as evidence have not been followed. The appellant has also placed reliance on certain decisions wherein on identical facts, similar addition made have been deleted. The appellant has also challenged the addition made on protective basis on the contention that the said amount

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

section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 providing for admissibility of electronic records as evidence have not been followed. The appellant has also placed reliance on certain decisions wherein on identical facts, similar addition made have been deleted. The appellant has also challenged the addition made on protective basis on the contention that the said amount

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

section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 providing for admissibility of electronic records as evidence have not been followed. The appellant has also placed reliance on certain decisions wherein on identical facts, similar addition made have been deleted. The appellant has also challenged the addition made on protective basis on the contention that the said amount

PATIDAR BUILER PRIVATE LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed partly

bogus since non-\ngenuine. Further the CIT(A) erred in not deciding the ground in full with\nrespect to advances amounting to Rs.268480/- made by the AO. The\nAppellant prays that the said advances be held as genuine and the addition\nbe directed to be deleted.\nGround No. 1:\n4. In this ground, the assessee challenges the disallowance

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus. The Tribunal also noted that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue against the order of ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of BLB Cabel and Conductors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) by their judgment dated 19.06.2018 in GA No. 747/2017. 12. In view of forgoing discussion we reach logical conclusion that the Assessing

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus. The Tribunal also noted that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue against the order of ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of BLB Cabel and Conductors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) by their judgment dated 19.06.2018 in GA No. 747/2017. 12. In view of forgoing discussion we reach logical conclusion that the Assessing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RATLAM, RATLAM vs. SHRI SURESH CHAND JAIN, JHABUA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & Acit 5(1) Shri Suresh Chand Jain Indore 99, Thandla Road, Vs. Meghnagar,Jhabua (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan:Aezpj 2697F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .09.2023

2 of 18 ITA No.791/Ind/2017 & ITANo.431/Ind/2018 Shri Suresh Chan Jain Page 3 of 18 further noted that these vehicles have not done any transport work up to January or February 2012 and assesse has shown only for last two or three months as transport work done by these vehicles for which no payment was made even for the month

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RATLAM vs. SHRI SURESH CHAND JAIN, MEGHNAGAR DIST. JHABUA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & Acit 5(1) Shri Suresh Chand Jain Indore 99, Thandla Road, Vs. Meghnagar,Jhabua (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan:Aezpj 2697F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .09.2023

2 of 18 ITA No.791/Ind/2017 & ITANo.431/Ind/2018 Shri Suresh Chan Jain Page 3 of 18 further noted that these vehicles have not done any transport work up to January or February 2012 and assesse has shown only for last two or three months as transport work done by these vehicles for which no payment was made even for the month