THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. 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

THE DCIT,1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. RITSPIN SYNTHETICS LTD., PITHAMPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms indicated above, and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowed under section 69C of the Act. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in PCIT v. Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd. [2022] 145 taxmann.com 27 (Guj.), held that once repayment of loan is proved on the basis of documentary evidence, the ingredients of creditworthiness and genuineness stand satisfied and no addition under section 68 is warranted. In Principal Commissioner of Income

MORNI SAREES PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

disallowance was under Section 36(1)(ii) of bonus as per “impugned intimation order” and that Section 43B was nowhere in picture. Our attention was drawn to following:- “ As per Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act, any sum paid to an employee as bonus or commission for services rendered, shall be allowed as deduction. But in this case

DANISH HEALTH CARE P LTD ,UJJAIN vs. PR CIT -1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Danish Health Care Pr. Cit-1, Private Limited, Indore बनाम/ 76/27, Maxi Road, Industrial Area, Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaecd5554F Assessee By Ms.Ruchira Negi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2023

section 36(1)(va). Ld. AR fairly agreed that the assessee has not deposited employees’ contribution before due dates and in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), the same is disallowable. Faced with this situation, we agree that the PCIT has rightly invoked revisionary jurisdiction qua this issue

THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S MOENUS TEXTILE PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10

164 pages. 7. We have heard rival contentions carefully perused the records placed before us. Apropos to Ground no.1 raised by the revenue, we find that it relates to the addition of Rs.1,31,50,000/- made by the ld. AO u/s Moenus Textile P. Ltd. 68 of the Act for the unexplained share application money received from following three

THE EVEREST ENGLISH EDUCATION EXTENSION SOCIETY ,TILAK NAGAR, DEWAS (M.P.) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, UJJAIN, EXEMPTION WARD, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanithe Everest English Education Ito Extension Society Ujjain 83 Bhagat Singh Marg Meera Vs. Bawdi, Dewas (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabtt4223B Assessee By Shri Manoj Madnis, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2024

disallowed and no exemption u/s 11 is allowed on this amount. Amount of Rs. 46,53,442/- is being taxed at Maximum Marginal Rate as per provisions of section 164

BALAJI PHOSPHATES LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCITACIT 1(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibalaji Phosphates Limited, Dcitacit 1(1), 305, Utsav Avenue, Indore Vs. 12/5 Ushaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadcb5654R Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 O R D E R

164 to 166 as under: 7 Balaji Phosphates Limited 8 Balaji Phosphates Limited 9 Balaji Phosphates Limited 10 Balaji Phosphates Limited 5.1 We find from the record that so far as the adjustment made by the CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act it was a double addition on account of disallowance made

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

164 Taxman 406 (Delhi), service charges, equipment hire charges and interest on loans to employees, it was held would not be entitled to special deduction under section 80-1 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act", for short). On an appeal filed by the appellant-assessee, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Tribunal in respect of service

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

164 Taxman 406 (Delhi), service charges, equipment hire charges and interest on loans to employees, it was held would not be entitled to special deduction under section 80-1 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act", for short). On an appeal filed by the appellant-assessee, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Tribunal in respect of service

THE ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. TURQUISE INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT.LTD., NAGDA

In the result, against total disallowance of Rs

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

164 ITD 42 (Mum. Trib) 7. Anshul Special melecules Limited vs. DCIT (ITANo.4436/Mum/2016) Mum. Trib Torquise Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITANos.332 & 333/Ind/2017 8. DCB Birla Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITANo.5706/Mum/2015) Mum Trib. 9. Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2017) 165 ITD 659 (Mum. Trib.) 10. Morgan Stanley Investment Management Private ltd. vs. DCIT (ITANo.5195/Mum/2014 Mum Trib

DY. CIT -1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and interest paid there on has also been disallowed. 5.8 It is seen from the assessment order passed in the present case that the AO has only doubted the creditworthiness of the lender and the genuineness of the transactions and has not disputed the identity of the loan creditors. The AO carried

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AVILABLE FINANCE LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and interest paid there on has also been disallowed. 5.8 It is seen from the assessment order passed in the present case that the AO has only doubted the creditworthiness of the lender and the genuineness of the transactions and has not disputed the identity of the loan creditors. The AO carried

M/S AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD.,INDORE vs. THEDCIT 1(1) , INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and interest paid there on has also been disallowed. 5.8 It is seen from the assessment order passed in the present case that the AO has only doubted the creditworthiness of the lender and the genuineness of the transactions and has not disputed the identity of the loan creditors. The AO carried

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

Section 37 of the Act matter and constitute the test. Expenditure incurred in furtherance of and connected with the business and commercial activities for which the respondent-assessee was established cannot be disallowed as expenditure not relatable and incurred for 'business' purposes. 15. On the question of capital expenditure, the assessing officer did Page 16 of 29 Indore Development Authority

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

Section 37 of the Act matter and constitute the test. Expenditure incurred in furtherance of and connected with the business and commercial activities for which the respondent-assessee was established cannot be disallowed as expenditure not relatable and incurred for 'business' purposes. 15. On the question of capital expenditure, the assessing officer did Page 16 of 29 Indore Development Authority

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

Section 37 of the Act matter and constitute the test. Expenditure incurred in furtherance of and connected with the business and commercial activities for which the respondent-assessee was established cannot be disallowed as expenditure not relatable and incurred for 'business' purposes. 15. On the question of capital expenditure, the assessing officer did Page 16 of 29 Indore Development Authority

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

Section 37 of the Act matter and constitute the test. Expenditure incurred in furtherance of and connected with the business and commercial activities for which the respondent-assessee was established cannot be disallowed as expenditure not relatable and incurred for 'business' purposes. 15. On the question of capital expenditure, the assessing officer did Page 16 of 29 Indore Development Authority

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,INDORE vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION CIRCLE), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

Section 37 of the Act matter and constitute the test. Expenditure incurred in furtherance of and connected with the business and commercial activities for which the respondent-assessee was established cannot be disallowed as expenditure not relatable and incurred for 'business' purposes. 15. On the question of capital expenditure, the assessing officer did Page 16 of 29 Indore Development Authority