ACIT 2 (1), INDORE vs. M/S JILA INDUSTRIES LTD, DHAR

In the result this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R.Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanivirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit-2(1), Indore M/S. Jiji Industries Ltd., (Formerly Known As बनाम/ Krishna Profiles Pvt. Ltd.), Vs. Plot No.316, Sejwaya, Billod, Dhar (Mp) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A.N. - Aacck 1383 M Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2022

disallowance vide Para No. 5.2 by observing as under: “5.2 Ground No.2: Through this ground of appeal, the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs. 1,71,32,125/- on account of commission expenses. During the year under consideration the appellant has paid the commission of Rs. 1,71,32,125/- as against Rs. 61,96,000/- paid

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023 AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Ground No. 3 to 5: 14. In these grounds, the revenue has challenged the CIT(A)’s action of deleting

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023 AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Ground No. 3 to 5: 14. In these grounds, the revenue has challenged the CIT(A)’s action of deleting

MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. ACIT- (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023 AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Ground No. 3 to 5: 14. In these grounds, the revenue has challenged the CIT(A)’s action of deleting

ACIT CENTRAL -2, INDORE vs. M/S KETI CONSTRUCTION LTD, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18

disallowance to be triggered." 4 In the case of Pr.CIT vs Karnatka State Financial corporation (2022)137 taxmann.com 195(Supreme court), Notice has been issued in SLP filed against order of High Court wherein HC held that provision of Section

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

Section 37(1) of the Act. 3. Development charges whether received or not would accrue to the assessee at the rate of Rs.170/- per Sq. Feet at par with 22 buyers of the plots and thus, the development charges would not be a charge on the assessee's profit as the same would be commensurately recoverable from the buyers

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

Section 37(1) of the Act. 3. Development charges whether received or not would accrue to the assessee at the rate of Rs.170/- per Sq. Feet at par with 22 buyers of the plots and thus, the development charges would not be a charge on the assessee's profit as the same would be commensurately recoverable from the buyers

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

SANJEEV JHA,SARWA SAMPAN NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NFAC, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2019-20 Sanjeev Jha, Income-Tax Officer, 195, Sarwa Sampan Nfac, Nagar, Delhi बनाम/ Kanadia Road, Vs. Near Columbia Convent, Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aeypj7626M Assessee By Shri H.N.Joshi, Ar Revenue By Shri K. Bala Murali Krishna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

195, Sarwa Sampan NFAC, Nagar, Delhi बनाम/ Kanadia Road, Vs. Near Columbia Convent, Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AEYPJ7626M Assessee by Shri H.N.Joshi, AR Revenue by Shri K. Bala Murali Krishna, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement 30.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 20.02.2024 passed by learned

GOPAL MUWEL,MANAWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAR

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

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshigopal Muwel, Ito बनाम/ Morad, Manawar, Dhar Vs. Dhar (Pan: Caapm6256Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Lucky Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

195 (Madras HC), genuine business expenses cannot be disallowed solely because they are cash-paid OR supported by self-made vouchers, especially when their necessity is commercially evident.” 3. Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 27.01.2026 when the Ld. AR for & on behalf of the Assessee appeared before us & interalia contended

DEEPAK PAREKH,USA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

disallowed the TDS of Rs 14,59,120/-."\n(Refer page 14 of CIT(A) order)\n8. We draw your Honour's kind attention to the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Pune Bench in the case of Anil Ratanlal Bohora ITA No.675/PUN/2022 wherein after discussing Section 199 of the I.T. Act and Rule 37BA, it has been held

SHRI HUMAD JAIN SAKH SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,INDORE vs. ITO 2(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

195 Taxman 117 (Bombay):\n“Admit. During the course of the hearing of these appeals by the Revenue u/s\n260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, submissions have been urged before the\nCourt confined to the following substantial question of law:\n2. \"Where upon the issuance of a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961 read with Section

CRISP SOCIETY ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Manish Borad

disallowance u/s. 11 and taxing entire income of the appellant as business income, contrary to the facts and without considering provisions of section 11 of the Act. 3. The ld CIT(A) erred in applying the provisos to section 2(15) and therefore treating Rs. 1,50,21,153 as business income from trade and commerce. (Tax Effect

CRISP SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. DCIT -EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Manish Borad

disallowance u/s. 11 and taxing entire income of the appellant as business income, contrary to the facts and without considering provisions of section 11 of the Act. 3. The ld CIT(A) erred in applying the provisos to section 2(15) and therefore treating Rs. 1,50,21,153 as business income from trade and commerce. (Tax Effect

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

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

195), it was held/averred, as follows, by the Hon'ble ITAT: "In order to give a different colour, the Id. DR contended that this disallowance was made on protective basis only and hence cannot be equated with the substantive disallowance. We have noted above about the validity and presumption of the protective assessment in general. Protective assessment cannot be pendent

ROHIT KUMAR YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(5), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirohit Kumar Yadav Ito 5(5) Hig-Dx-2Manishmati Arvind Indore Vihar, Mahishmati Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaupy5015 F Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2024

disallowance, which has already been made in block assessment of the assessee, thereby leaving no income escaping assessment. Under these circumstances we are satisfied that having made addition of Rs. 527.85 lakhs in the block assessment, the Assessing Officer was not justified in forming the belief, either on substantive or protective Page 5 of 9 ITANo.442/Ind/2023 Rohit Kumar Yadav basis

ULTIMATE CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2010-11 Ultimate Construction, Dcit-1(1), G-1, Kamdenu Tower, Bhopal बनाम/ E-2/21, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aabfu9241J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, C.A. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.02.2024

disallowance of Rs. 29,867/- on account of donation and charity expenses.” 2. The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 66 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee carried us to an affidavit of one Shri Brijesh Kumar Pandey, owner of Shop No. 12, Ground Floor, Block-A, Kamdhenu Tower, E-2/21, Arera

DCIT KHANDWA, KHANDWA vs. M/S RAJRAJESHWAR COTTON CORPORATION, SENDHWA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Cross-

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) & C.O. No. 9/Ind/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit M/S Raj Rajeshwar Cotton Khandwa Corporation, बनाम/ Warla Road, Sendhwa, Vs. District - Khandwa (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aagfr 6243 N Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022

disallowance. During the reassessment proceedings, the AO had not brought on record any fresh material. Further, the AO had reopened the case on the basis of information received from DDIT(Inv.)-II, Indore which was again primarily based on the decisions of Hon'ble ITAT in another case. 4.7 The AO had thus proceeded on the basis of borrowed satisfaction