RNG CONSTRUCTION CO.,INDIRA NAGAR vs. DCIT, DCIT-CPC

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshirng Construction Co. Dcit बनाम/ 14, Sector-A, Vs. Indira Nagar, Mandideep (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqfr9084B Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025

160/- which was assessed by Page 1 of 12 RNG Construction Co. ITA No.156/Ind/2024- AY:2017-18 AO by way of processing u/s 143(1) vide intimation dated 05.12.2018 at a total income of Rs. 40,78,610/- after making a total addition of Rs. 31,19,456/- on two counts, namely (i) Disallowance

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,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

160/- made on account of additions u/s 68 of the Act and corresponding unexplained expenditure of Rs. 66,261/- u/s 69C has overlooking the findings of the AO recorded in the Assessment order. The ld.CIT-DR also pointed out that the ld. AO, after considering the entire facts and circumstances, made disallowance u/s 68 of the Act pertaining to accommodation

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -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

160/- made on account of additions u/s 68 of the Act and corresponding unexplained expenditure of Rs. 66,261/- u/s 69C has overlooking the findings of the AO recorded in the Assessment order. The ld.CIT-DR also pointed out that the ld. AO, after considering the entire facts and circumstances, made disallowance u/s 68 of the Act pertaining to accommodation

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

160/- made on account of additions u/s 68 of the Act and corresponding unexplained expenditure of Rs. 66,261/- u/s 69C has overlooking the findings of the AO recorded in the Assessment order. The ld.CIT-DR also pointed out that the ld. AO, after considering the entire facts and circumstances, made disallowance u/s 68 of the Act pertaining to accommodation

THE DCIT CENTRAL-(1), INDORE vs. M/S AYUSH AJAY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. , INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanii.T(Ss).A. Nos.14 To 16/Ind/2018 (Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10)

1) of the Act before the search had taken place, ad hoc addition made by the AO is not Justified, Similar question was also considered in the block assessment by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Ashim Krishna Mondal, 270 ITR 160 (Cal), wherein it was held no addition case be made

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

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Indore [’the CIT(A)’] has erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs.6,54,95,133/- 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

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

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Indore [’the CIT(A)’] has erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs.6,54,95,133/- 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

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

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Indore [’the CIT(A)’] has erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs.6,54,95,133/- 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

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

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

disallowance. We have noted above about the validity and presumption of the protective assessment in general. Protective assessment cannot be pendent of substantive assessment. This protective assessment is always successive to the substantive assessment. There may be a substantive assessment without any protective assessment but there must be any protective assessment without there being a substantive assessment. In simple words

M/S. BHATIA GLOBAL TRADING LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibhatia Global Trading Ltd. Dcit 1(1) Through Official Liquidator Indore Old Cia Building, 1St Floor Vs. Opp. G.P.O. Residency Area, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacb6751 C Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .07.2023

section 144C(13) in pursuant to the directions of DRP dated 26.12.2016 passed u/s 144C(5) of the Act for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The assesse has under gone the liquidation process before the NCLT vide order dated 22.10.2020 the liquidator was appointed by NCLT. Page 1 of 17 Bhatia Global Trading Ltd. Page 2 of 17 3. None

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

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

160/- and has shown the net profit @ 21% of the turnover and very reasonable & fair in this line of business. In the assessment, disallowance of Rs.1,59,56,504/- was made and if the said disallowance is added to the total income, the net profit comes to Rs.1.50,51,327/- (Rs.(-)9,05,177/- Rs.1,59,56,504/-) which

MUDIT KUMAR BAJAJ,UJJAIN vs. ITO-1(2), UJJAIN

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aezpb2621P Assessee By Ms. Nupur Ladha & Shri Vaibhav Siroliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2024 O R D E R

disallowed if they are made in cash in the sums exceeding the amount specified under section 40A(3). We have earlier observed that rule 6DD has to be read along with section 40A(3). The rule also contemplates payments made for stock-in-trade and raw materials. This rule is in accordance with the terms of section

IMRAN KHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO2 (2), BHYOPAL

In the result the issue No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradimran Khan Ito 2(2) S/O Sh. Gulab Khan H. No.35 Bhopal Village-Inayatpura Kolar Board, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ckqpk5708M Assessee By Shri Niranjan Purandar Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.01.2024

1 31.03.2013 Smt. Shabnam Khan 61,16,000/- W/s. Imran Khan 2 31.03.2013 Ku. Sheenam Khan 19,67,000/- (Minor) D/o Imran Khan 3 29.03.2013 Ku. Iqra Khan (Minor) 21,85,420/ D/o Imran Khan 4 29.03.2013 Mr. Imran Khan (self) 69,55,000/- 5 29.03.2013 Faizan Khan (minor). 61,09,000/- S/o Imran Khan Total purchase value Rs.2

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

160 has held that (Refer para 3 to 6):- “3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Section 68 of the Act of 1961 says that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered

NHDC LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT - 3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, Cross appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes and CO is dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninhdc Limited Dcit, 3(1) F-01, Nhdc Parisar, Shyamla Bhopal Vs. Hills Bhopal -462013 (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 1732G Dcit, 3(1) Nhdc Limited Bhopal F-01, Nhdc Parisar, Vs. Shyamla Hills Bhopal -462013 (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn 1732G

disallowed on Deferred Tax Liability. During the financial year, the assesse materialized the DTL which was duly certified by Independent Auditor appointed by the CAG. As per Regulation 39 of the Tariff Regulation issued vide Central Electricity Regulatory Commission Notification No. 1-7/145(160)/2000-CERC dated 19.01.2019 which provides that Deferred Tax Liabilities for the period up to 31st

DCIT 3 (1) , BHOPAL vs. M/S NHDC LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, Cross appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes and CO is dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninhdc Limited Dcit, 3(1) F-01, Nhdc Parisar, Shyamla Bhopal Vs. Hills Bhopal -462013 (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 1732G Dcit, 3(1) Nhdc Limited Bhopal F-01, Nhdc Parisar, Vs. Shyamla Hills Bhopal -462013 (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn 1732G

disallowed on Deferred Tax Liability. During the financial year, the assesse materialized the DTL which was duly certified by Independent Auditor appointed by the CAG. As per Regulation 39 of the Tariff Regulation issued vide Central Electricity Regulatory Commission Notification No. 1-7/145(160)/2000-CERC dated 19.01.2019 which provides that Deferred Tax Liabilities for the period up to 31st

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT-1 (1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

1,01,528/- Rs. 34,85,807/- Interest Chargeable u/s 234A Rs. 28,640/- Interest Charged u/s 234A Rs. 10,160/- Short levy of interest Rs. 18,480/- Interest Chargeable u/s 234B Rs. 7,00,607/- Interest Charged u/s 234B Rs. 6,64,650/- Short levy of interest Rs. 35,957/- Interest Chargeable