M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

1,06,99,464/- for A.Y. 10-11 and Rs. 3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

1,06,99,464/- for A.Y. 10-11 and Rs. 3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

1,06,99,464/- for A.Y. 10-11 and Rs. 3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics

THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

1,06,99,464/- for A.Y. 10-11 and Rs. 3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics

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. S.R. FERRO ALLOYS,JHABUA vs. THE PCIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act whereas the SCN under section 263 was regarding the FIFO method of valuation of closing stock adopted by the Assessee. These were, as rightly noted by the ITAT, unconnected issues and the assessment order could not have been held to be "erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue" when

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

161-174 of the paper book so as to justify the amount of interest paid and claimed as deduction during the year under consideration. In view of these facts, it is clear that the disallowance of Rs. 10,18,580/- made by the Assessing Officer was unjustified as the borrowed funds were utilized towards purchase of Sanjay Lunawat ITA No.396/Ind/2018

ITO 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S AMKAY COLONISERS & BUILDERS P LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ito 1(1) M/S. Amkay Colonisers & Bhopal Builders Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 16, Amar Stambh, Z-1, M.P. Nagar Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue ) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaeca 6272 F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.12.2022

disallowance while framing assessment. Upholding the same, we dismiss the Ground No. 1. Page 3 of 16 M/s. Amkay Colonisers and Builders Pvt. ltd. Assessment year 2013-14 Ground No. 2: 7. This ground relates to the addition of Rs. 3,75,00,000/- made by AO on account of bogus cash credit u/s 68. 8. During assessment-proceeding

SHRI SHALIGRAM BAROD, ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

disallowed an amount of Rs. 5,16,033/- out of total selling expenses for want of supporting documents etc. 5. Subsequently, a notice under section 263 of the Income Tax Act was issued by the Pr. CIT, Indore for the following three reasons and he was of the opinion that the assessment order as passed by the assessing officer

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. ARIHANT CAPITAL MARKETS LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

1) of the Act duly served upon the assessee. The Assessing Officer on going through the expenditure on interest. However, no expenditure has been disallowed u/s 14A of the Act. The Assessing Officer accordingly applying the method provided under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules read with section 14A of the Act made disallowance

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 u/s 69 2014-15 1

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 u/s 69 2014-15 1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S AGRAWAL CONSTRUCTION CO., BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

disallowed as under. S.No Assessment Year Amount of deduction withdrawn/disallowed 1. 2006-07 Rs. 3,33,72,475/- 2. 2007-08 Rs, 79,65,722/- 3. 2008-09 Rs. 1,76,81,161/- 6. Before learned CIT(A), written submissions were filed by the assesse and reliance was also been placed on a plethora of judgments to support the assessee

M/S AGARWAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,BHOPAL vs. DYPTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

disallowed as under. S.No Assessment Year Amount of deduction withdrawn/disallowed 1. 2006-07 Rs. 3,33,72,475/- 2. 2007-08 Rs, 79,65,722/- 3. 2008-09 Rs. 1,76,81,161/- 6. Before learned CIT(A), written submissions were filed by the assesse and reliance was also been placed on a plethora of judgments to support the assessee

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

161 written back Other miscellaneous income 1,82,34,177/- 1,52,00,367 Page 2 of 19 ITA No.316/Ind/2020 & ITANo.20/Ind/2021 & CO NO.03/Ind/20219 NHDC Ltd. Page 3 of 19 Other income of Corporate Office 97,61,826 50,76,149/- Total 27,23,10,590 55,38,30,282 Grand total (ISPS & OSPS) 82,61,40,872 2.1. Thus

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

161 written back Other miscellaneous income 1,82,34,177/- 1,52,00,367 Page 2 of 19 ITA No.316/Ind/2020 & ITANo.20/Ind/2021 & CO NO.03/Ind/20219 NHDC Ltd. Page 3 of 19 Other income of Corporate Office 97,61,826 50,76,149/- Total 27,23,10,590 55,38,30,282 Grand total (ISPS & OSPS) 82,61,40,872 2.1. Thus

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

161 A.Y. 2015- (SC) 16 15 Interest is The AO disallowed the allowable on claim of the assessee genuine for interest only on the borrowing ground that the unsecured loans on which the interest have been paid are not genuine. Once, such loans are considered as genuine, then the entire interest would be allowable u/s. 36(1)(iii). 12.1 Reference

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

161 A.Y. 2015- (SC) 16 15 Interest is The AO disallowed the allowable on claim of the assessee genuine for interest only on the borrowing ground that the unsecured loans on which the interest have been paid are not genuine. Once, such loans are considered as genuine, then the entire interest would be allowable u/s. 36(1)(iii). 12.1 Reference