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

section 36(1)(viia) to the extent of the specified limits. The disallowance made by the AO is, therefore, rightly deleted. Accordingly, the Revenue’s appeal on this ground is dismissed.” 8. Per contra, Ld. DR for revenue relied upon following decisions: (i) ITAT, Visakhapatnam in Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chaitanya Godavari Grameena Bank (2018) 93 taxmann.com

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

192/- aggregated to closing balance of Rs. 72,86,373/-. The Appellant has filed confirmation of such loan financials including copy of ITR & Balance Sheet and other details to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan. On the other hand, the ld. AO has placed reliance on statement of certain persons for making such disallowance. To rebut such

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 u/s 43B shall get attracted or not is a ‘debatable’ issue. He admitted that there are decisions against assessee (i.e. in favour of revenue) on the basis of Page 3 of 12 RNG Construction Co. ITA No.156/Ind/2024- AY:2017-18 provision of section 145A but at the same time there are decisions favouring assessee as well. He relied upon

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

section 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

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

section 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

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

section 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

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

section 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

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

MANSA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,BHOPAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, 5(3), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Mansa Builders & Income-Tax Officer, Developers, 5(3), 1, Bhopal C/O Radha Krishna बनाम/ Traders, Vs. Bhanpur Square, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan : Aatfm5948C Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Adv. & Shri N.D. Patwa, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024

section 145A. Therefore, the assessee’s case is very much covered by the decisions of Hon’ble Mumbai High Court and ITAT, Raipur quoted above holding that unpaid service-tax liability not debited to P&L A/c was not disallowable u/s 43B r.w.s. 145A. There are some more favourable decisions as submitted by Ld. AR in the Written-Submission

THE ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL vs. M/S. BHASKAR INDUSTRIES LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

192/- had been made in the equity shares of United Textiles Mills Limited. The assessee had shown dividend of Rs. 93,42,585/- received from such companies, which was claimed as exempt from tax in view of I.T.A.Nos.68 & 194/Ind/2014 A.Y.2010-11 Page 5 of 11 Bhaskar Industries P.Ltd., Bhopal provisions of Sec 10(34/35) of the Income

M/S. BHASKAR INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS BHASKAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

192/- had been made in the equity shares of United Textiles Mills Limited. The assessee had shown dividend of Rs. 93,42,585/- received from such companies, which was claimed as exempt from tax in view of I.T.A.Nos.68 & 194/Ind/2014 A.Y.2010-11 Page 5 of 11 Bhaskar Industries P.Ltd., Bhopal provisions of Sec 10(34/35) of the Income

SHIVGANGA DRILLERS P LTD,INDORE vs. CPC , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 43B shall not apply. According to the Ld. DR, the impact would be such that if the employees’ contributions are paid after the due dates under the PF / ESI laws, disallowance would happen. The Ld. DR further submitted that the words “… shall be deemed never to have been applied …” appearing in these newly inserted Explanations clearly demonstrate that

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

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

192/- made by the A.O. on account of disallowance of deduction expenditure. 11. On the fact and in the Circumstance of the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- made by the A.O. on account of unaccounted receipts. 12. On the fact and in the Circumstance of the case

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

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

192/- made by the A.O. on account of disallowance of deduction expenditure. 11. On the fact and in the Circumstance of the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- made by the A.O. on account of unaccounted receipts. 12. On the fact and in the Circumstance of the case

JAI SINGH JADESA,INDORE vs. DCIT CPC ,BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Section 36(1)(va) of the Act has stated that any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of the sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of Section 2 applies if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee’s account in the relevant fund

M/S BHASKAR PRAKASHAN PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE CIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Section 36(1)(va) of the Act has stated that any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of the sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of Section 2 applies if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee’s account in the relevant fund

M/S CANDOR TEXTILES P LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Section 36(1)(va) of the Act has stated that any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of the sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of Section 2 applies if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee’s account in the relevant fund

SHIV SHAKTI PRAKASHAN P LTD,BHOPAL vs. CPC BANGLORE, BANGLORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Section 36(1)(va) of the Act has stated that any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of the sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of Section 2 applies if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee’s account in the relevant fund