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

HARDA NAGAR BAL VIKAS SAMITI HARDA ,SARSWATI SHISHU MANDIR vs. ITO-1, HARDA, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms mentioned above

192\n27,19,994\nHarda Nagar Bal Vikash Samiti (Society)\n-\n(15,17,865)\nTotal\n2,36,39,736\n42,46,993\nSince the annual receipts exceeded the eligibility limit, the assessee ceased to be eligible for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) from AY 2017-18. Therefore, the assessee filed an application to CIT(Exemption), Bhopal

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

192 (Raipur – Trib.) order dated 09.07.2024 against assessee. But on further appeal by assessee, the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in Grand Motors Vs. ITO (2024) 169 taxmann.com 241 (Chattisgarh) order dated 25.11.2024 reversed ITAT’s view and held in favour of assessee. Subsequently, in another case of DCIT- 1(1) Vs. Vishal Automobiles (2025) 177 taxmann.com 74 (Raipur – Trib

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

disallowing said payments under section 40A (3)- Whether on facts, impugned revisional order did not require any interference- Held, yes [Para-16] [ In favour of revenue] 4.0 Therefore, in view of the above discussion I am of the considered opinion that the order dated: 06.01.2016 for A.Y. 2013-14 is erroneous in so far as it is also prejudicial

SHRI VIJENDRA KUMAR TIWARI ,INDORE vs. THE CIT NFAC , DELHI

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

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

CATAYSER EDUVENTURES (INDIA)P LTD,INDORE vs. THE DCIT2(1) INDORE, 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

M/S KOHINOOR ELASTICS 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

SAHARAYN UNIVERSAL MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(ia) - 30% of the expenses on which TDS\nwas not deducted\n(i) Rent & Utility charges\n1,29,43,872\n(ii) Salary Expenses\n85,34,595\n(iii) Co-operative Educator Expenses\n193,28,93,248\n(iv) Payment to Contractors\n1,86,718\n(v) Professional Charges\n15,79,826\nAssessed income

SHRI SUNIL GURJAR,DHAR vs. THE ADIT CPC , BANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. 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

DWARK PRASAD PATHK,INDORE vs. THE ITO 5 (2) INDORE, 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

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

CATAYSER EDUVENTURES (INDIA)P LTD,INDORE vs. THE DCIT2(1) INDORE, 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

KOMAL KUMAR JAIN,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

TORINO LABORATORIES P LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT/ / ACIT 4 (1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Torino Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Dcit/Acit-4(1), Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabct1347B Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2022 O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

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

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