ACIT, RATLAM vs. M/S SHIRANI MOTORS PVT. LTD., RATLAM (MP)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

disallowances: (i) addition of deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of Rs. 1,43,59,734/- (ii) disallowance of conveyance

ACIT, RATLAM vs. M/S SHIRANI MOTORS PVT. LTD., RATLAM (MP)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

disallowances: (i) addition of deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of Rs. 1,43,59,734/- (ii) disallowance of conveyance

ACIT , RATLAM vs. M/S SHIRANI AUTOMOTIVES PVT. LTD, RATLAM MP

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, M/S. Shirani Automotive Ratlam P. Ltd. बनाम/ 29, Shirani Pura, Vs. Ratlam (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aancs 1007 M Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

deemed dividend are established, revenue can treat dividend income at hands of shareholders and tax them accordingly, and (iv) where loans and advances are given in normal course of business and transaction in question benefits both payer and payee companies, provisions of section 2(22) (e) cannot be invoked - Whether judgment of High Court was to be agreed with

SHREERAM CONSTRUCTIONS,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishreeram Construction, Commissioner Of बनाम/ Shop No.2,New Shri Ram Income-Tax Vs. Parisar, Phase I Khajuri Kala, (Appeals) Bhopal, Bhopal (Pan:Abgfs5939P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Govind Rinwa, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Deemed Dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) Rs. 4,12,812/- ii) Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) Rs. 18,35,500/- Disallowance

GAURANG METALS P LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Gaurang Metals Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aabcg2498Q Assesseeby Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2023

deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, if in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner - (a) The order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) The order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; Page 2 of 7 Gaurang Metals

ACIT (CENTRAL UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S ARIHANT FUTURE AND COMMODITIES LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

dividend income during the year for working of 14A disallowance as is clarified by the CBDT’s Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11th February, 2014. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the aforesaid addition u/s 14A, while incorrectly observing that the interest income of the assessee was much

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-UJJAIN, INDORE vs. M/S ARIHANT CAPITALS MARKETS LTD , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

dividend income during the year for working of 14A disallowance as is clarified by the CBDT’s Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11th February, 2014. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the aforesaid addition u/s 14A, while incorrectly observing that the interest income of the assessee was much

THE ACIT, CENTRAL - UJJAIN, INDORE vs. M/S ARIHANT FUTURE & COMMADITIES LTD , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

dividend income during the year for working of 14A disallowance as is clarified by the CBDT’s Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11th February, 2014. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the aforesaid addition u/s 14A, while incorrectly observing that the interest income of the assessee was much

PATIDAR BUILDER PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. AO, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed partly

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2011-12 Patidar Builder Pvt. Ltd. Assessing Officer E-4/382 Arera Colony, (Jcit-Range-2, Bhopal) बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaacp8931A Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025

disallowance should not be made. However, this pleading is made for the sake of argument only and we indicated to Ld. AR during hearing itself that his contention/claim remains unsubstantiated to which Ld. AR instantly agreed. Therefore, the pleading is rejected. 6. The second defense made by Ld. AR is such that the payment was made on Saturday at around

M/S KOHINOOR ELASTICS P LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance of dividend received. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assesse filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assesse. 5. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the sole issue in the present assessment is related to upholding addition of Rs.43,00,281/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. FLEXITUFF VENTURES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, DHAR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Us Assailing The Order Of First-

dividend income has to be disallowed and cannot be treated as business expenditure. Keeping this objective behind Section14A of the Act in mind, the said provision has to be interpreted, particularly, the word ‘in relation to the income’ that does not form part of total income. Considered in this hue, the principle of apportionment of expenses comes into play

M/S. BHANDARI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

disallowance, cannot be lost sight of, equally, such a requirement has to be viewed in the context and circumstances of each given case. In the present case, it was repeatedly emphasized that the assessee’s dividend income was confined to what it received from investment made in a sister concern, and that only one dividend warrant was received. These facts

DECENT INDUSTRIES P. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Decent Industries Ito-1(2), Private Ltd, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Corporate Park, बनाम/ Db City Area Hills, Vs. Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeca6271G Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta & Shri N.K. Gupta Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

deemed fit in the interest of revenue". Thus, it is clear that the AO inspite of having issued commission u/s 131(1)(d), could not get the statement of Shri Anand Sharma recorded, confirming that he had provided any accommodation entry to the appellant company through M/s Abhishek Advisory Pvt. Limited. 5.9 At para 5(iv), the AO has mentioned

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

dividend. Relying upon certain judicial rulings, the AO made disallowance. For computation of the quantum of disallowance, the AO relied upon Part (iii) of Rule 8D; accordingly he made disallowance of Rs. 41,34,428/- (0.50% of investment made in assets for earning exempt income). 40. Ld. AR for assessee assailed the disallowance made by AO on multiple counts

INFOBEANS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE, M.P.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed being devoid of

Bench: Sh. Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

dividend received ( from various funds L &T , Kotak Equity, Aditya Birla, etc) amounting to Rs. 9,43,983/- and copies of ledger account of relevant mutual fund investments (including consolidated MF statements ). 15. The Ld. AR submits that the assessment order has been passed after conducting necessary inquiries and after due application of mind and the said order is neither

M/S PUMARTH PROPERTIES & HOLDING (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

deemed as incomes under section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of 30% is clear. The amendment in section 115BBE(2) w.e.f. 01.04.2017 is only clarificatory and to avoid litigation. The income surrendered by the appellant during the course of the search has the character of items included in section 115BBE

SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT -1(2), BHOPAL

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

deeming fictions created under the Explanations. For example, the ‘Assessee’ might not M.P. State Tourism and others (ITA No.2/Ind/2015 and others) 21 disclose particular sales or dividend income or income from any source. Such instances would fall under the main provisions itself. In such cases, the burden is on the AO to establish the existence of the charge

SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT -1(2), BHOPAL

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

deeming fictions created under the Explanations. For example, the ‘Assessee’ might not M.P. State Tourism and others (ITA No.2/Ind/2015 and others) 21 disclose particular sales or dividend income or income from any source. Such instances would fall under the main provisions itself. In such cases, the burden is on the AO to establish the existence of the charge