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

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act h permissible, even there is violation of the provisions of Section 194C (7) of the Act. In this case the Honourable Tribunal has placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of CIT v. ValibhaiKhanbhai Mankad [2013] 216 Taxman 18

INFOBEANS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE, M.P.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed being devoid of

Bench: Sh. Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

section 14(2A) , prior to working out disallowance as per Rule 8D of the Rules 62 . 23. The Ld AR rested his arguments with a prayer that considering the entire factual aspect of the matter, the direction of the Ld PCIT issued to the AO to make disallowance u/s 14A deserves to be annulled. 24. The Ld DR relied

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the 8,12,755 Act 5 Employee remuneration and benefit 18,91,316 6 Disallowance

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the 8,12,755 Act 5 Employee remuneration and benefit 18,91,316 6 Disallowance

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the 8,12,755 Act 5 Employee remuneration and benefit 18,91,316 6 Disallowance

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

disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before us. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company was incorporated in India on 13.09.1996. The assessee provides software development and maintenance services from STPI and SEZ registered units. The primary activities of the assessee relate to provision

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

disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before us. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company was incorporated in India on 13.09.1996. The assessee provides software development and maintenance services from STPI and SEZ registered units. The primary activities of the assessee relate to provision

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

disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before us. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company was incorporated in India on 13.09.1996. The assessee provides software development and maintenance services from STPI and SEZ registered units. The primary activities of the assessee relate to provision

PRASHANTI ENGINEERING WORKS P LTD,PITHAMPUR vs. THE ASST.DCIT ,CPC, BANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Under Section 139(1).

section 143(1) of the Act was passed on 18-04-2020. The income was assessed at ₹ 14,13,310/- in the said intimation by making disallowance

M/S. BCC ENTERPRISES (INDIA) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ITO-1(4), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14

18,480/- over and above suo moto disallowance made by the assessee. Disallowances were also made for expenditure of Rs.2,00,000/-. Income assessee at Rs.1,19,73,153/-. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of expenses at Rs.2,00,000/- and confirmed the remaining additions against

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

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

disallowed an amount of Rs. 18,99,796/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income- Tax Act, 1961. 31. Being

M/S RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIK VISHWAVIDHALYA,HOSANGABAD vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 324 & 325/Ind/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vs. Dcit, Vishwavidyalaya, Cpc, Bhopal Bangaluru

disallowing deduction by intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act is not proper.” 13. The Revenue has not rebutted the fact that the assessee had made claim u/s 10 as well as under section 10 in column no.13 in the return of income and also made the claim u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) as per column

M/S RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIK VISHWAVIDHALYA,HOSANGABAD vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 324 & 325/Ind/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vs. Dcit, Vishwavidyalaya, Cpc, Bhopal Bangaluru

disallowing deduction by intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act is not proper.” 13. The Revenue has not rebutted the fact that the assessee had made claim u/s 10 as well as under section 10 in column no.13 in the return of income and also made the claim u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) as per column

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

disallowable. (b) Actual development expenses when actually incurred would have to be considered for deduction in the relevant A.Ys. subject to fulfillment of the provisions of Section 37 (1) of the Act. 13. The CIT (A), in his order has neither adjudicated this issue nor has discussed the facts, and the assessee has not raised the issues specifically

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

disallowable. (b) Actual development expenses when actually incurred would have to be considered for deduction in the relevant A.Ys. subject to fulfillment of the provisions of Section 37 (1) of the Act. 13. The CIT (A), in his order has neither adjudicated this issue nor has discussed the facts, and the assessee has not raised the issues specifically

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

18 12 March-18 87786 6225 52851 Provision 8. The Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the assessee and upheld the disallowance made by the CPC in para 4.2 as under: “4.2 Ground of Appeal No.2 pertains to the contention of the appellant that the Ld. A.O was not justified in making additions on account of cash

JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MYDT,SEHORE, MP vs. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi / Bank Mydt, Acit-3(1), Bhopal बनाम/ Sehore, M.P. Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaalj0022F Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026

disallowance of Rs. 2 lacs confirmed by both the lower authorities relating to provision for contingency of standard assets claimed by the assessee u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Before proceeding further we would like to reproduce the provision of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act as under :- “Other deductions. Page 5 of 18

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

section. Ld. DR, therefore, prayed to uphold the disallowance. 18. We have carefully considered the submission of Ld. DR and also