THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(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 AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P 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 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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 40A(3), it was held that "In interpreting a taxing statute, the court cannot be oblivious of the proliferation of black money which is under circulation in our country."' 4.3.3; AO's finding that it is a case of dubious tax planning, it has to be necessarily upheld for the simple reasons that the only object of the appellant

SHRI PRADEEP MAHESHWARI HUF,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 40A(3), it was held that "In interpreting a taxing statute, the court cannot be oblivious of the proliferation of black money which is under circulation in our country."' 4.3.3; AO's finding that it is a case of dubious tax planning, it has to be necessarily upheld for the simple reasons that the only object of the appellant

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 40A(3), it was held that "In interpreting a taxing statute, the court cannot be oblivious of the proliferation of black money which is under circulation in our country."' 4.3.3; AO's finding that it is a case of dubious tax planning, it has to be necessarily upheld for the simple reasons that the only object of the appellant