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 under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act does not arise just because there is violation of provisions of Section 194C (7) of the Act. It was also held that Section 194C (6

JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

6) and 194C(7) need to be read together and once there is violation of section 194C disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is attracted

THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE vs. JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

6) and 194C(7) need to be read together and once there is violation of section 194C disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is attracted

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

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

194C; and also submitted the challan of TDS to AO. Taking into account these facts, Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance to the extent of 10% of Rs. 1,46,30,000/- i.e. Rs. 14,63,030/- and granted part-relief to assessee. The objection of Ld. AO qua this part is very limited i.e. the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RATLAM, RATLAM vs. SHRI SURESH CHAND JAIN, JHABUA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & Acit 5(1) Shri Suresh Chand Jain Indore 99, Thandla Road, Vs. Meghnagar,Jhabua (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan:Aezpj 2697F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .09.2023

section 194C are not applicable. Accordingly we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) qua this issue. 9. Ground no.4 is regarding the disallowance of interest from loan to relatives. 9.1 Ld. DR has submitted that the assesse has given interest free loan/advances of Rs.76,93,211/- to relatives

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RATLAM vs. SHRI SURESH CHAND JAIN, MEGHNAGAR DIST. JHABUA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & Acit 5(1) Shri Suresh Chand Jain Indore 99, Thandla Road, Vs. Meghnagar,Jhabua (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan:Aezpj 2697F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .09.2023

section 194C are not applicable. Accordingly we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) qua this issue. 9. Ground no.4 is regarding the disallowance of interest from loan to relatives. 9.1 Ld. DR has submitted that the assesse has given interest free loan/advances of Rs.76,93,211/- to relatives

SHREERAM CONSTRUCTIONS,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishreeram Construction, Commissioner Of बनाम/ Shop No.2,New Shri Ram Income-Tax Vs. Parisar, Phase I Khajuri Kala, (Appeals) Bhopal, Bhopal (Pan:Abgfs5939P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Govind Rinwa, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of convenience & brevity] before this tribunal as and by way of a second appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1055303506(1) dated 22/08/2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein

M/S RAJENDRA AGRI PRODUCTS P LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT (TDS) , BANGALURU

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirajendra Agri Product P. Dcit Ltd. Cpc Banglore Vs. 302, Royal House,11/13 Usha Ganj Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcr 3053 L Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2023

section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereas the assessee has deducted as well as deposited the TDS amounting to Rs. 12,90,594/- on 31st October 2018 i.e. payment after signing of balance sheet and Audit report dated 30th October, 2018, but this payment was made before the due date of return filling i.e. 31st October

ACIT , RATLAM vs. M/S SHIRANI AUTOMOTIVES PVT. LTD, RATLAM MP

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, M/S. Shirani Automotive Ratlam P. Ltd. बनाम/ 29, Shirani Pura, Vs. Ratlam (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aancs 1007 M Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

194C. Section 194IA is applicable for sale of immovable property for a value exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs. The appellant has not sold any immovable property to M/s Volkswagon during the year under consideration. The Appellant has offered the income of Rs. 2,80,800/- for taxation showing the same under the head other income. Since, the appellant has already offered

THE ITO-1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S FRIENDS ASSOCIATES, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniito-1(1) M/S Friends Associates Bhopal Shop No.32, G.T.B. Complex New Market, Vs. Bhopal

6 Explanation For the purposes of this sub-clause- (i) "commission or brokerage" shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) of the Explanation to section 194H (ii) "fees for technical services" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9; (iii) "professional services shall have the same meaning

SHYAM SUNDER VERMA ,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT -2, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

194C and 194J as per section 26AS are more than the receipts shown in ITR I.T.A No. 993/Ind/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 3 Shri Shyam Sunder Verma vs. Pr. CIT (c) Tax credit claimed in ITR is less than tax credits available in 26AS (d) Mismatch in sales turnover reported in audited report and ITR 4. During the course

M/S ROCKBED RENOVATORS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirockbed Renovators Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 7-A, Panjabi Bagh Raisen Road Bhopal Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7151G Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2024

194C and therefore, if some of the parties have not responded to the notice issued u/s 133(6(. The assessee cannot be held liable for the same and consequently cannot be parished by disallowing the claim of expenses which is otherwise supported by the relevant evidences. 3.3 In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of this

RAJ KUMAR PALIA,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - ITARSI, CAMP AT BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2009-10 Raj Kumar Paliya Dcit/Acit M/S. Da Construction

194C but was not deducted.” [emphasis supplied] 3.2 Aggrieved, the assessee again carried matter in appeal to CIT(A) whereupon the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of depreciation but restricted disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) to 30% of Rs. 2,16,333/- taking into account the subsequent clarificatory amendment made by Govt. in section 40(a)(ia). The relevant paras

CMM KETI JV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(3), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Cmm Keti Jv, Income-Tax Officer, 108, Shalimar Corporate 1(3), Center, Indore. बनाम/ 8-B, South Tukoganj, Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aakfc7524K Assessee By Shri Shashank Sharma, Ca & Shri Prakash Gupta, Ca Revenue By Shri Sanjeev H. Bhagat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2025

194C of the Act. The appellant did not produce the books before the AO nor did the appellant furnish any details relating to the payments made to the sub-contractor whether attracted the provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. In fact the AO has given a finding that the audit report is totally silent in respect