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

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

ITO 2(5), INDORE vs. M/S I PARADISE INFOMEDIA P LTD., INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowed under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act, which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld.CIT(A) with the following observations: “4.1.1The section 195 states that any person responsible for paving to a non-resident or a foreign company, any sum chargeable to tax under the Act is required to deduct tax at source at the rates

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

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

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

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

1). Despite this, the authorities failed to apply the presumptive scheme under Section 44AD, which obviates the need for detailed expense scrutiny OR maintenance of books. 3. machinery (along with driver and operator services) constitutes a systematic business. As held in Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (SC, 2016) and Chennai Properties & Investments

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

1. "Whether or not on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,33,07,231/- made by AO for A.Y 2017-18 on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ignoring the fact that the asessee has not provided any quantitative details

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

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: “1

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

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

MANISH KUMAR RADHESHYAM NYATI ,DHAR vs. ITO, DHAR

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

disallowing Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares of Rs. 35,99,598/- claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act, 1961 and treating it as income from undisclosed sources. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 35,99,598/- was rightly claimed as exempt

VIJAY RADHESHYAM NYATI HUF,DHAR vs. ITO, DHAR

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

disallowing Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares of Rs. 35,99,598/- claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act, 1961 and treating it as income from undisclosed sources. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 35,99,598/- was rightly claimed as exempt

SMT. MAMTA NYATI DHAMNOD DISTT. DHAR,DHAMNOD vs. ITO DHAR, DHAR

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

disallowing Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares of Rs. 35,99,598/- claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act, 1961 and treating it as income from undisclosed sources. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 35,99,598/- was rightly claimed as exempt

SMT VIJAYA NYATI, DHAR vs. ITO, DHAR

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

disallowing Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares of Rs. 35,99,598/- claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act, 1961 and treating it as income from undisclosed sources. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 35,99,598/- was rightly claimed as exempt