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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus blasting expenses. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings found that assessee has claimed blasting expenses of Rs. 13,39,555/- , however, has submitted details of Rs. 1,01,330/- only which has also been reproduced by the AO on page no 3 of the impunged assessment order. The AO further observed that payments were made

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

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 that the company m/s. Eden Financial Services, from whom the shares were purchased off line

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

bogus. The customers furnished the confirmation, copy of bank account and proof of filing of the return. The appellant furnished the following documents in support of his claim. 1. Plot booking form. 2. Copy of sale deed. By filing the above documents the appellant is able to establish the i. Identity of the customers - Most of the customers are income

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

bogus or unreliable. Therefore, in the given circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee is covered by the exceptions in the proviso below sub- section (3A) to section 40A(3) and no disallowance u/s 40A(3) can be made in the hands of the assessee.” 17. We therefore respectfully following the judgment in the case of Gurdas Garg

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

bogus or unreliable. Therefore, in the given circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee is covered by the exceptions in the proviso below sub- section (3A) to section 40A(3) and no disallowance u/s 40A(3) can be made in the hands of the assessee.” 17. We therefore respectfully following the judgment in the case of Gurdas Garg

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

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

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

DCIT CENTRAL-1, 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

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

SHRI SANJAY SOMANI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT-5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed for all

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargbefore Shri Chandra Mohan Gargbefore Shri Chandra Mohan Gargbefore Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena, Accountant & Shri O.P.Meena & Shri O.P.Meena, Accountant & Shri O.P.Meenamember Member

section 40A(3) of the Act. Thus, the said amount was treated as Shri Sanjay Somani/ I.T.A. No.757&758/Ind/2014/AY:03-04&05-06 & I.T.A. No. 236/Ind/2016/AY04-06 Page 5 of 11 invested in purchases from undisclosed sources. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act were initiated in respect of above addition. In reply to penalty show cause notice

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

3. The sole issue involved in present appeal is the disallowance of Rs. 41,39,084/- u/s 40A(2) made by AO and upheld by CIT(A). 4. At first, we extract the order passed by AO in this regard: “(ii) Disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b):- Further auditor in Form 3CD at column no. 23 have furnished the particulars

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 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

40A (3)- Whether on facts, impugned revisional order did not require any interference- Held, yes [Para-16] [ In favour of revenue] 4.0 Therefore, in view of the above discussion I am of the considered opinion that the order dated: 06.01.2016 for A.Y. 2013-14 is erroneous in so far as it is also prejudicial to the interest of revenue

THE ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. M/S. SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by the Revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13

40A(3) of the Act at Rs.4,26,000/- , addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of bogus cash credit introduced in the books of account at Rs.2,76,42,000/- and addition of bogus creditors at Rs.83,05,400/- . Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and succeeded. 3. Now the revenue is in appeal before