THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P 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

JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MYDT,SEHORE, MP vs. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi / Bank Mydt, Acit-3(1), Bhopal बनाम/ Sehore, M.P. Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaalj0022F Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026

disallowance under section 144 because the same has been incurred for the purpose of business." The PCIT therefore agrees that

THE ACIT 3(2), INDORE vs. M/S. SIMRAN DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ito-3(2), M/S. Simran Developers Indore 402, Mark Building, बनाम/ Saket Square, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Ackfs 1946 B Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 16.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

144" Thus, it is clear that if the AO has any doubt about any expenditure claimed by the appellant, the provisions of section 145 should be applied and profit should be determined at reasonable figure. All the payments made to the aforesaid three contractors were by account payee cheques. The department has not pointed out any instances where

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

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

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

Section 145(3) are in order. v) Further on examination of books of account it was found dis under:- (a) Cash payments against purchases exceeding Rs.20-400 were made amounting to Rs. 13,92,820/- are disallowable us-40A(3). (b) Payment exceeding Rs.35,000/- were made to 2 transporters totalling to Rs. 1,50,500/- are disallowable

BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

144 read with section 147 and section 144B of the Act. The Assessing Officer treated the entire amount of ₹13,50,000/- as ITA Nos.178-180/Ind/2025 Bharat Kalwani vs. ITO A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee, while also initiating penalty proceedings. 4. Aggrieved

BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

144 read with section 147 and section 144B of the Act. The Assessing Officer treated the entire amount of ₹13,50,000/- as ITA Nos.178-180/Ind/2025 Bharat Kalwani vs. ITO A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee, while also initiating penalty proceedings. 4. Aggrieved

BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

144 read with section 147 and section 144B of the Act. The Assessing Officer treated the entire amount of ₹13,50,000/- as ITA Nos.178-180/Ind/2025 Bharat Kalwani vs. ITO A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee, while also initiating penalty proceedings. 4. Aggrieved

M/S. SANWARIA AGROILS LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

disallowance of initial depreciation under section 32 (1) (iia) of Rs.1, 20, 20, 000/-is made by the AO was confirmed. 23. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that electricity is produced and, commercially tradeable and therefore it was ‘article or thing’ within the meaning of section

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act. As the assessee was treated by the Ld. AO in earlier years as bogus concern for the year under consideration solely relying upon this particular fact that the interest paid to this concern was also disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee to the tune of Rs.69,64,144

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act. As the assessee was treated by the Ld. AO in earlier years as bogus concern for the year under consideration solely relying upon this particular fact that the interest paid to this concern was also disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee to the tune of Rs.69,64,144

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act. As the assessee was treated by the Ld. AO in earlier years as bogus concern for the year under consideration solely relying upon this particular fact that the interest paid to this concern was also disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee to the tune of Rs.69,64,144

SHEETAL KAUSHAL,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 5(2), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member)

disallowance. 5. That the various findings of the learned lower authorities are opposed to the facts hence the same may kindly be quashed. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned lower authorities erred and were not justified in making addition of Rs.35.20,000/- on account of unexplained investment U/s 69 of the Act. 7. That

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI,MANDSAUR vs. THE ACIT RATLAM, DELHI

In the result this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the ACIT, Ratlam for assessment-year 2004-05. Subsequently, the appeal was migrated to the National Faceless Appeals Centre in terms of Notification No. 76/2020 dated 25.09.2020. Notice for hearing was issued electronically. This appeal is represented by the written- submission e-filed by the appellant, which is considered

ACIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

Appeal are ALLOWED”

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit 1(1), Bridgestone India Private Indore Limited, Plot No. A-43, बनाम/ Phase Ii, M.I.D.C Chakan, Vs. S.O Chakan, Pune (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabcb2304E Assessee By Shri Kaustubh Fadnis & Manoj Fadnis, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2025

disallowance made under section 144 made by AO without appreciating the facts and evidences mentioned in the assessment order by the ΛΟ

SHRI AVIJIT SHASTRI,INDOR vs. THE ITO 4(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 144 of the Act by not adjudicating the matter on merits which is prayed to be quashed. 3. The CIT(A) also erred in not accepting the additional evidences relating to various investments and deductions as claimed in return of income filed by assessee which is prayed to be admitted in the interest of justice. Avijit Shastri

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

disallowances. Thus, ground nos. 1 to 5 are allowed. 10. Apropos ground No.6, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated this ground, therefore, we deem it proper that the issue be restored to the AO to verify the claim of the assessee in respect of credit of TDS. In case