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 cannot be said to be justified in view of the observations made hereinabove. Further, we find that the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) have not been controverted by the Ld.CIT-DR by bringing any contrary material on record. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the findings

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee

SARTHAK REAL BUILT PVT. LTD, ,INDORE vs. DY, CIT,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S FERRO CONCREATE CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT. LTD INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee

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

SANJEEV JHA,SARWA SAMPAN NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NFAC, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2019-20 Sanjeev Jha, Income-Tax Officer, 195, Sarwa Sampan Nfac, Nagar, Delhi बनाम/ Kanadia Road, Vs. Near Columbia Convent, Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aeypj7626M Assessee By Shri H.N.Joshi, Ar Revenue By Shri K. Bala Murali Krishna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

3) r.w.s. 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2019-20, the assessee has filed this appeal. 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual is engaged in the business of catering/serving food and Page 1 of 6 Shri Sanjeev Jha, Indore ITA No. 356/Ind/2024 – AY 2019-20 manpower

DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S MAA UMIYA AGRITECH PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit 1(1) M/S. Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Indore 119, A.B. Road, Aloo Pyaj Mandi, Vs. Indore (Appellant / (Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn8230F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

depreciation chart. Ld. AR has further submitted that the AO has calculated a sum of Rs.13,92,820/- as disallowable u/s 40A(3) whereas the assessee itself has made a suo-moto disallowance of Rs.47,73,187/- in the computation of income. Therefore, this figure of Rs.13,92,820/- is included in the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee

RAINA GARG,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Raina Garg, Ito-4(1), Prop. M/S. Garg Trading Bhopal Company, बनाम/ Purana Kabadkhana, Vs. Jumerati, Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aawpg4732F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.02.2024

40A(2) read with section 2(41) and not all 6 persons for which the AO has made disallowance. The order of CIT(A) in para no. 4.1.1 re-produced above does not decide the assessee’s submission judicially. After taking into account Page 8 of 18 Raina Garg, Bhopal ITA No. 334/Ind/2023 – AY 2015-16 entire conspectus of issue

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

depreciation at Rs.1,53,066/- to be carry forward for set up in subsequent years. 3. After passing of the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, Ld. Pr. CIT examined the assessment records and documents filed by the assessee and notice that the M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. assessment order is prima facie, erroneous and prejudicial

PRASAM RAKESH CHOUDHARY,GIRNAR SOCIETY, BAPURAO GALLI, ITWARI, NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

3) r.w.s. 263 was passed in which the depreciation claimed by the appellant was disallowed by virtue of the provisions of section explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. As per the said provisions where the portion of the cost of the assets acquired by the assessee is met directly or indirectly by the Central Government or State

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHOPOAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RASHTRIYA TAKNIKI SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN EVAM ANUNSANDHAN SANSTHAN, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

3) r.w.s. 263 was passed in which the depreciation claimed by the appellant was disallowed by virtue of the provisions of section explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. As per the said provisions where the portion of the cost of the assets acquired by the assessee is met directly or indirectly by the Central Government or State

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

40a(ia) of the Act without giving a finding as how the provisions of section 194C is applicable in respect of all these payments. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted this addition in para 5.4 as under: “Ground No.4 & 11- Through these grounds of appeal the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs.23,38,690/- out of repair

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

40a(ia) of the Act without giving a finding as how the provisions of section 194C is applicable in respect of all these payments. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted this addition in para 5.4 as under: “Ground No.4 & 11- Through these grounds of appeal the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs.23,38,690/- out of repair

DR DESHMUKH MOTHER AND CHILD CARE ,UJJAIN vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Dr. Deshmukh Mother & Pr. Cit-I, Child Care, Indore बनाम/ 27, Nirman Nagar, Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aahfd3407H Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Negi, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2023

depreciation rates. Thus, Ld. AR submitted that on one hand the AO has enquired into the issue and on other hand, the figures tally and there is no difference. Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that the assessment-order is totally silent on this issue and does not talk of any information having been filed by assessee to AO. Page

DHANRAJ DISTRIBUTORS (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT (1), INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

40A(2); (ii) addition of Rs. 4,05,500/- u/s 68; (iii) disallowance of Rs. 28,000/- out of telephone, vehicle maintenance and depreciation; and (iv) disallowance of Rs. 20,000/- out of office, conveyance and travelling expenses. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal wherein the CIT(A) granted part relief by deleting the addition of last item

BALAJI PHOSPHATES LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCITACIT 1(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibalaji Phosphates Limited, Dcitacit 1(1), 305, Utsav Avenue, Indore Vs. 12/5 Ushaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadcb5654R Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 O R D E R

Depreciation disallowed 12420517 Interest on Income Tax 549366 TDS not deducted on Advertisement 74250 TDS not deducted on office rent 61200 13110533 30772049 Page 107 Sl.No.23 of paper book 23. Any other item or items of addition Under section 28 to 44DA 684816 5.2 It appears that the CPC has made this addition in respect of advertisement and office