THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

133(6) were issued by the AO to the brokers who duly complied with the same and represented their matters before the then AO. It is further submitted by the appellant that the entire discussion made by the AO in the reassessment order is with respect to brokers namely S. N. Commodities, Shubhlaxmi Commodities, Subhlamxi Traders and Sairam Commodities

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

133(6) but it failed to comprehend the rationale or logic behind.............., nor to examine any of the ....................It is highly improbable for any person having sound mind to purchase at arm’s length the shares of a private limited company, hardly having any worth, with face value of Rs.10 at a premium of Rs.190. This mere fact should have

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 2(1) , INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

133/- made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (’the Act’) read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 (’the Rules’) 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, satisfaction recorded under section 14A(2) of the Act was improper and otherwise bad in law and as such, no disallowance under section

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT-CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

133/- made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (’the Act’) read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 (’the Rules’) 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, satisfaction recorded under section 14A(2) of the Act was improper and otherwise bad in law and as such, no disallowance under section

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

133/- made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (’the Act’) read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 (’the Rules’) 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, satisfaction recorded under section 14A(2) of the Act was improper and otherwise bad in law and as such, no disallowance under section

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

6. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. Before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee submitted as follows: “2. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO 1 – INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A (2)(b). 2.1 The Learned AO erred in disallowing a sum of Rs. 14,50,421/- under

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

6. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. Before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee submitted as follows: “2. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO 1 – INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A (2)(b). 2.1 The Learned AO erred in disallowing a sum of Rs. 14,50,421/- under

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

6. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. Before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee submitted as follows: “2. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO 1 – INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A (2)(b). 2.1 The Learned AO erred in disallowing a sum of Rs. 14,50,421/- under

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

133(6) of the Act however, Ld AO neither made any independent enquiry subsequent to their filing of Affidavits retracting the statements nor Ld.AO provided any opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee. 13.4 Learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that during the course of the assessment proceedings, it was submitted before the AO that in respect

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

133(6) of the Act however, Ld AO neither made any independent enquiry subsequent to their filing of Affidavits retracting the statements nor Ld.AO provided any opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee. 13.4 Learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that during the course of the assessment proceedings, it was submitted before the AO that in respect

M/S ROCKBED RENOVATORS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirockbed Renovators Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 7-A, Panjabi Bagh Raisen Road Bhopal Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7151G Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2024

133(6(. The assessee cannot be held liable for the same and consequently cannot be parished by disallowing the claim of expenses which is otherwise supported by the relevant evidences. 3.3 In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of this tribunal dated 08.02.2024 in case of AL AS Real Estate and Page 7 of 33 ITANo.214/Ind/2023

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL , BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

Section 145 are applicable. The books of accounts are also not been rejected, hence the adhoc disallowance are wholly unlawful and unjustified. The assessee submits that the disallowance is neither justified nor lawful. From the perusal of the chart, the increase in mainly on account Page 32 of 54 Som Distilleries Private Limited I.T.A. Nos. 272 & 289/Ind/2023

SOM DISTILLERIES PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(3), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

Section 145 are applicable. The books of accounts are also not been rejected, hence the adhoc disallowance are wholly unlawful and unjustified. The assessee submits that the disallowance is neither justified nor lawful. From the perusal of the chart, the increase in mainly on account Page 32 of 54 Som Distilleries Private Limited I.T.A. Nos. 272 & 289/Ind/2023

CUMMINS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P) LTD.,DEWAS vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicommins Technologies India Acit, Circle -1(1) Private Limited Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area No.2, A.B. Road, M.P. (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabct2018B Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved & Pinkesh Vakharia Ars Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

disallowance of claim of INR 72,992/- under section 10AA of the Act on the interest earned from fixed deposits kept with bank(s) by the Appellant as margin money for providing letter of credit and guarantee to the suppliers and other Government departments for registration like Sales Tax etc. 8. Deduction in respect of 'Education Cess on income

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

133(6) with various shareholders of the assessee company. 5.12. Thus, from the above discussion, it is clear that the appellant has furnished all the documentary evidences to prove identity and creditworthiness of M/s Abhishek Advisory Pvt. Ltd. and genuineness of the transactions. Whereas the AO has made the addition without bringing on record any evidence to show that

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.

133(6) were served and replies were received by the AO from Six companies directly and from one company by the assesses on the instructions of the AO. 2.6 The AO commented that though the identity of shareholder is proved yet the genuineness and credit worthiness is not proved. 2.7 That when the assessee has proved the identity and also

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

133(6) of the Act to obtain information which was not Page 3 of 47 Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited, Chennai Assessment year 2007-08 available in public domain and relying on the same for comparability purposes. 9. The ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP erred in law and in facts, by accepting/ rejecting companies based on unreasonable comparability

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

133(6) was received by them. The Assessing Officer noted that the notices were despatched at the addresses given by Page 11 of 37 DCIT v. Ravi Arora Assessment year 2011-12 the assessee and, therefore, the contention of the assessee is rejected. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2,30,00,000/- and disallowed the interest payment