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

disallowed on the ground that power/electricity generated by assessee could not be equated with an article or thing which was being manufactured in an industrial undertaking, held that if there can be sale and purchase of electric energy like any moveable object, then electric energy is covered by the definition of goods and thus admissibility of additional depreciation could

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

SMT. ABHADEVI NARENDRA AGRAWAL,BURHANPUR vs. THE ACIT, KHANDWA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.58/Ind/2015 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 14A provides that disallowance can be made in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income whereas the assessee has not incurred any expenditure in relation to exempt income. The AR also cited the some decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court to contend that Rule 8D cannot be blindly applied where no expenditure was incurred

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 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 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 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

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

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

THE DCIT, 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. MODERN LABORATORIES, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ ./ ./ I.T.A. No.277 & Co.16/Ind/2014 ./ "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09

disallowance of Rs. 31,91,080 as sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) are deleted , accordingly, Ground No. 1 and 1.1 of Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed. 9. Ground No. (ii) and (iii) of Revenue relates to deleting addition of Rs. 1,33,00,000 made under section 68 of the Act and Ground no. 2 of Cross

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

M/S. CHHAGANLAL KISHANLAL & CO.,BURHANPUR vs. THE ACIT, KHANDWA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

160 42,270 3.Sudha Garg 93,806 Not 93,806 charged 4.Sweta(loan 5 lac for 1- 8,625 Not 8,625 1/2 month) charged Total interest disallowed 1,98,291 1.1.1. In view of above, the AO disallowed the interest of Rs. 1,98,291/- by observing that the assessee has diverted interest bearing funds for advancing the same

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

M/S. HERO'S EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

disallowance of deduction u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee society is an educational institution registered under the M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. It is also registered u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, vide CIT Bhopal order dated 31.12.2003 w.e.f