THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowing entire deprecation claimed by appellant and secondly not justified in estimating NP @ 5%. Thus, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 2,04,60,184/- is Deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed.” 18. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the facts discussed above squarely establish that

JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 194C disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is attracted ? 5. The issues involved in various grounds raised by parties are identified and tabulated thus: No. Issue A.Y. Assessee’s Revenue’s Ground No. Ground No. 1 Unexplained investment in the form of cash loans 2013-14 1,2,3 and notional interest thereon

THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE vs. JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 194C disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is attracted ? 5. The issues involved in various grounds raised by parties are identified and tabulated thus: No. Issue A.Y. Assessee’s Revenue’s Ground No. Ground No. 1 Unexplained investment in the form of cash loans 2013-14 1,2,3 and notional interest thereon

KANHAIYA LAL PANCHAL,RATLAM vs. BPL-W-(91)(95), RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2024-25 Kanhaiya Lal Panchal, Bpl-W-(91)(95) 1, Jadwasa Kala, बनाम/ Ratlam Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aqrpp0055D Assessee By Shri Kaide Kangsawala, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

disallowance of rebate by the CPC appears to be a result of a programming change in the utility logic post January 2025 and is not supported by any statutory amendment or binding judicial precedent. The rejection of the assessee's claim under section 87A on technical grounds without affording a prior opportunity is also violative of the proviso to section

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

section 32(1) by making a sufficient note in assessment-order. Consequently, we uphold AO’s action. The assessee fails in this ground. Ground No. 23: 32. This ground relates to the cost of Rs. 73,10,920/- incurred by assessee towards licensed software treated by AO as capital expenditure. 33. The assessee has incurred cost towards purchase of licensed

NEELAM MITTAL,BURHANPUR vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

In the result, all grounds raised by the assessee(s) are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2015-16

disallowance made in contravention to principles of natural justice be directed to be deleted. 4.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the shares have been sold on recognized stock exchange and the same cannot be doubted and accordingly the sale proceeds cannot be treated as unexplained. Accordingly

RITU MITTAL,BURHANPUR vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

In the result, all grounds raised by the assessee(s) are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2015-16

disallowance made in contravention to principles of natural justice be directed to be deleted. 4.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the shares have been sold on recognized stock exchange and the same cannot be doubted and accordingly the sale proceeds cannot be treated as unexplained. Accordingly

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

disallowing said payments under section 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

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act even though the first proviso of section 201(1) of the IT Act was inserted w.e.f. 01/07/2012 whereas the relevant A.Y. in the case of the assessee is A. Y. 2010-11 and also the assessee has not produced the certificate from C.A in prescribed proforma as envisaged in provision

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold and silver

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold and silver

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold and silver

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

disallowance of expenses u/s 14A. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and made detailed Page 3 of 44 M/s Decent Industries Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 356/Ind/2023 – AY 2012-13 submissions but did not get any success. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 3. The grounds raised by assessee are as under

M/S. MADHURI REFINERS (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT-3(1), INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Madhuri Refiners Dcit, 3(1) Private Ltd., Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcm 1884 C Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.09.2022 O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

112/- under the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act." Page 14 of 18 Madhuri Refiners P. ltd. A.Y. 2015-16 4. The Revenue is now in appeal before us against the aforesaid findings of the learned CIT(A). The ld. DR while relying on the order of the AO contended that

ITO 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S AMKAY COLONISERS & BUILDERS P LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ito 1(1) M/S. Amkay Colonisers & Bhopal Builders Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 16, Amar Stambh, Z-1, M.P. Nagar Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue ) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaeca 6272 F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.12.2022

disallowance while framing assessment. Upholding the same, we dismiss the Ground No. 1. Page 3 of 16 M/s. Amkay Colonisers and Builders Pvt. ltd. Assessment year 2013-14 Ground No. 2: 7. This ground relates to the addition of Rs. 3,75,00,000/- made by AO on account of bogus cash credit u/s 68. 8. During assessment-proceeding

M/S OREF SECURITIES PRIVATE LTD. ,MANDSAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.70/Ind/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Vs. Ito, Mandsaur. M/S.Oref Securities P.Ltd. 69, Agrasen Nagar B/H. Mid India Mandsaur.

112/- only. As double addition cannot be made, therefore addition u/s 68 as discussed above of Rs. 11,77,50,000/- is being made in this case and as the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)9c) are also initiated.” 3. Before the ld.CIT(A), the appellant filed following written submissions: With regard

SHRI RAM BABU SINGH,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Ram Babu Singh, Dcit-1(1) C/O Sv Agrawal & Associates, Bhopal Dadi Dham, 24, Joy Builders Colony, Vs. Near Rafael Tower, Old Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aelps9945K Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 & 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23 .07.2024

112 units as breach of condition u/s 801B(10) for disallowing the claim is concerned, the DVO has made no reference to the measurement or to the house number of which the measurement were taken and were found to be exceeding the limits. The DVO has mentioned that the measurement were taken for sample units then

ABHAY KUMAR JAIN,RAISEN vs. PR CIT -2 , BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of Assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Abhay Kumar Jain, Pr. Cit-2 Old Bus Stand, Begumganj बनाम/ Bhopal Raisen Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Afqpj 0679 F Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ar Revenue By None Date Of Hearing 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2022

disallowed and added back to the assessee’s income under section 43B at the time of regular assessment which was not done. 3. Assessment in the said case, u/s 143(3) dated 25.04.2017, was finalized without considering the above mentioned facts. This omission on part of the AO, renders the order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests