M/S RANA & JOSHI BUILDTECH P LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pr. Cit-1 Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (Formerly Known As M/S Rana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) Vs. 218 Civil Lines, Below Dainik Bhaskar Office Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcr9858P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .09.2024

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Page 5 of 27 ITANo.229/Ind/2023 M/s Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. 4.1 Thus, the period of limitation has been extended upto 28.02.2022 as this period

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023 AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Ground No. 3 to 5: 14. In these grounds, the revenue has challenged the CIT(A)’s action of deleting

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023 AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Ground No. 3 to 5: 14. In these grounds, the revenue has challenged the CIT(A)’s action of deleting

MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. ACIT- (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023 AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Ground No. 3 to 5: 14. In these grounds, the revenue has challenged the CIT(A)’s action of deleting

JAIMAL SINGH AND SONS,PIPARIYA vs. THE ACIT CP BANGALORE, BENGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanijaimal Singh & Sons Acit, Cpc, 159 Nehru Ward, Pipariya Bangalore Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaafj 8045J Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23.08.2023

138 was deposited on 05.11.2021 whereas the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) was extended to 15.02.2021. Therefore, the provision of section 438 was complied with to claim the deduction during AY 2020-21. (3) The Ld CIT (A) NAFC erred in demanding the revised tax audit report for rectification of mistake in disallowing

THE ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. M/S. SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by the Revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13

disallowance made by Ld. AO u/s 41(1) of Rs. 83,05,400 6. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the judgments referred and relied by both the parties. Revenue is aggrieved with the findings of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition made

TOTAL DIAGNOSIS (P) LTD.,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(2), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 Total Diagnosis Pvt. Ltd. Ito Ward-4(2) 203, Zone-1, M.P. Nagar Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaact5844N

section 36(1)(iii) out of interest payment on the ground that borrowed funds has not been utilised for business purpose without appreciating the ratio of decision rendered by the Supreme Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) AND Sundaram Fastners Ltd. (1984) 149 ITR 773 Madras. 4. That

THEACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KETI CONSTRUCTION LTD., INDORE

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit(Central)-2 M/S Keti Construction Ltd Indore Vastalya Chamebers, Sapna Sangeeta, 31/6, Sneh Nagar Vs. Main Road, Indore

section 40a(ia) whereas the AO has made an adhoc disallowance by considering the total expenditure debited in the profit and loss account without considering fact that the assessee has already made suo-moto disallowance about 50% of the expenses u/s 40a(ia). He has relied upon the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5. We have considered

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 EAGAL SEEDS & BIOTECH LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Eagle Seeds & Biotech Ltd. Acit-2(1) 117, Silver Sanchora Castle Indore बनाम/ 7 Rnt Marg Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaace8528L

section 14A of the Act of Rs.1,058/-. The A.O. further made adhoc disallowance of Rs.1,50,000/-. Thus, assessed income at Rs.5,47,99,199/- against the income declared in the tax return at Rs.5,42,54,265/-. Further, the A.O. did not entertain claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred

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

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Accordingly, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo- moto cognizance for extension of the limitation, the appeal of the revenue

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) Page 2 of 32 Sewa Sahakari Sammittee Maryadit Beed Page 3 of 32 of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Accordingly the appeal filed by the assesse on 04.03.2022 is treated

WE WIN LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 5 (1) , BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 We Win Limited, Dcit-Central 5(1) (Formerly: Survevin Bpo Bhopal बनाम/ Services Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aakcs 9368 J Assesseeby Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2023

138/- made/confirmed by revenue-authorities and we do so. The assessee succeeds in this ground. Ground No. 2: 10. In this ground, the assessee claims that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 64,14,456/- out of salary expenditure. 11. Ld. AO made this disallowance by a very short-para

KAILASHCHANDRA KHANDELWAL,SENDHWA vs. PR. CIT -2, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Kailash Khandelwal Pr. Cit-2, Prop. M/S. Vikash Krishi Indore बनाम/ Seva Kendra, Bus Stand, Vs. Sendhwa, Barwani (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Acmpk2991E Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Vijay Bansal, Nisha Lahoti, Ars Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

disallowance cannot be made on hypothetical basis. [PB 04-82, 83-116, 117-138, 145-150] 9. Ld. AO has conducted proper enquiry to verify the transactions relating to unsecured loans, loans and advances made and the interest thereon. Ld. Pr. CIT has not pointed out any specific shortcoming in the verification conducted by Ld. AO so that the assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

section 80IA(5) of the Act. Agrawal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd ITA No.801 to 803/Ind/2018, ITA No.778/Ind/2018 & CO Nos.23 &24/Ind/2019 (ix) Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs G.R.T. Jewelers (India) Pvt. Ltd (2016) 95 CCH 0072. (x) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr vs. Yokogawa