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

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

disallowance) made by AO qua ‘debatable’ issue is outside the purview of section 143(1). He relied upon following passage of ATS Real Estate Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2025) 172

M/S M.P. MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

disallowances. Thus, ground nos. 1 to 5 are allowed. 5.1 By following the said decision of the Tribunal the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal for A.Y.2012-13 vide order dated 21.09.2022 has again decided this issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the assessee is charitable institute and eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. These decisions passed

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

disallowances. Thus, ground nos. 1 to 5 are allowed. 5.1 By following the said decision of the Tribunal the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal for A.Y.2012-13 vide order dated 21.09.2022 has again decided this issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the assessee is charitable institute and eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. These decisions passed

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

disallowances. Thus, ground nos. 1 to 5 are allowed. 5.1 By following the said decision of the Tribunal the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal for A.Y.2012-13 vide order dated 21.09.2022 has again decided this issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the assessee is charitable institute and eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. These decisions passed

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

disallowances. Thus, ground nos. 1 to 5 are allowed. 5.1 By following the said decision of the Tribunal the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal for A.Y.2012-13 vide order dated 21.09.2022 has again decided this issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the assessee is charitable institute and eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. These decisions passed

THE ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. M/S. SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by the Revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13

section 41(1) are not attracted and no disallowance can be made. These amounts received as Sunderdeep Construction Pvt. Ltd flat booking advance always formed part of the Balance Sheet. There is no debit or credit entry appearing in the Profit and Loss Account. It is contended that the year in which the flats got registered these amounts received

DECENT INDUSTRIES P. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Decent Industries Ito-1(2), Private Ltd, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Corporate Park, बनाम/ Db City Area Hills, Vs. Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeca6271G Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta & Shri N.K. Gupta Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

disallowance of expenses u/s 14A. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and made detailed Page 3 of 44 M/s Decent Industries Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 356/Ind/2023 – AY 2012-13 submissions but did not get any success. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 3. The grounds raised by assessee are as under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

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

disallowance of development expenditure by AO was for it’s being contingent in nature. But the CIT (A) has failed to adjudicate and decide whether the AO was correct in his conclusion. Para 3.13:- The CIT (A), has stated that none of the customers has admitted of having paid any amount over and above what was recorded in the books

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

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

disallowance of development expenditure by AO was for it’s being contingent in nature. But the CIT (A) has failed to adjudicate and decide whether the AO was correct in his conclusion. Para 3.13:- The CIT (A), has stated that none of the customers has admitted of having paid any amount over and above what was recorded in the books

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

disallowing the said claim render the assessment order is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. You are, therefore) required to show cause why provisions of section 263 be not invoked in your case for the reasons mentioned above as the order of AO dated 27-12- 2016 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest

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

172 TTJ 721 (KOL) has..........virtually the whole law on 263. It has answered following questions most clarity; Q. Whether the enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer in such cases can be as a proper enquriy ? A. Though the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 133(6) but it failed to comprehend the rationale or logic behind.............., nor to examine

THE DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL vs. M/S. INDORE EDUCATION AND SERVICE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13

disallowed in the earlier year under section 43B were not claimed on payment in the assessment year by oversight was allowed by the Tribunal as the matter was before the assessing authority i.11 the earlier years." First Time Claim Before the CIT(A): Another related issue that arises is whether the assessee can claim relief before the CIT(A) even

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE vs. FERRO CONCRETE CON INDIA PVT. LTD., INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Ferro Concrete Con India Income-Tax Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ 3/5/7B, Bhagirathpura Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaacf2726K Revenueby Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Date Of Hearing 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026

172 taxmann.com 283 (Bombay) recently approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2025) 180 taxmann.com 790 (SC) in Judgement & Order dated 21.11.2025, the AO disallowed 100% of bogus purchases but in first-appeal, the CIT(A) upheld addition to the extent of only 12.50% equal to estimated “trading profit”. In appellate proceedings, although the ITAT confirmed CIT(A)’s order

M/S. FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD.,DHAR vs. DY. CIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2012-13

disallowance of interest paid on income tax. Before us Ld. counsel Flexituff International Ltd. ITANo.512/Ind/2019 for the assessee has referred to CBDT Circular No.25/2015 dated 31.12.2015 and the same is reproduced below: "CIRCULAR NO. 25/2015 F.No.279/Misc./140/2015/ITJ Government of India Ministry of Finance Central Board of Direct Taxes New Delhi, 31st December, 2015 Subject: Penalty

JYOTI GOYAL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed as mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Jyoti Goyal, Dcit, 18, Shyamla Hills, 1(1), बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abbpg3493P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

disallowance of addition of Rs. 15,50,000/- towards cash received by assessee treating the same on unexplained cash.” 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed her return for AY 2012-13 on 31.07.2012 declaring a total income of Rs. 8,06,570/- which was duly assessed. Subequently, the AO re-opened

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

In the result, against total disallowance of Rs

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S. Trapti Trading & Income Tax-2(1), Vs. Investment Pvt. Ltd, Ujjain Po Birlagram, Nagda Distt. Ujjain (M.P) (Revenue) (Respondent ) Pan Aabct6006B Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit Assessee By S/Shri Ronak Doshi & Rajiv Garg, Ars Date Of Hearing 11.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2019 O R D E R

Section 14A of the Act. We find that Ld. CIT(A) deleted the impugned disallowance of Rs.2,23,40,745/- u/s 14A of the Act observing as follows; “Ground No.1, 2, 3, 4 & 5:-Through these grounds of appeal the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs.2,23,40,745/-on account of disallowance

ASHOK KUMAR MOONAT,RATLAM vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-3), INDORE, INDORE

disallowance made by the\nAO u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE is unlawful. Further, the amended provisions\nof section 115BBE are applicable from 01.04.2017 and not from the\ndate of search.\n4.1.2 I have considered the entire matrix of the case, various case law\ncited by the appellant and also perused assessment order. It is\nundisputed fact that during the course