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)

section 194C disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is attracted ? 5. The issues involved in various grounds raised by parties are identified and tabulated thus: No. Issue A.Y. Assessee’s Revenue’s Ground No. Ground No. 1 Unexplained investment in the form of cash loans 2013-14 1,2,3 and notional interest thereon

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

disallowance made by AO. However, during hearing, we raised a specific query to Ld. AR that the assessee has claimed a total deduction of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- but the section 36(1)(viia) allows deduction upto a certain limit prescribed therein; whether the AO has verified that the deduction of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- is within permissible

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI,MANWAR DISTRICT DHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2015-16 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Dcit-Cpc-Tds, Manwar Distt. Dhar Ghaziabad बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No. Bplk01589A Appellant By Shri Prakash Jain & Ms. Shreya Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Singi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.10.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: The Above Captioned Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee For Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-I (In Short ‘Ld. Cit], Indore Dated 25.09.2017 Which Are Arising Out Of The Order U/S 200A Of The Income Tax Act 1961(In Short The ‘Act’) Dated

disallowed the claim of the assessee towards the non- applicability section 234E of Income Tax Act, 1961 and imposed a late filing fee of Rs.1,14,800/-. 2. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are the assessee is required to deduct and deposit tax deducted at source as and where applicable. The due date

MILLION TRADERS BHOPAL P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

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

disallowance is made by the CPC while processing the return u/s 143(1) therefore, the assessee had no occasion to produce the supporting evidence to show that the TCS was collected by the Excise Department in respect of the purchase made and accounted by the assessee. Page 4 of 24 ITA No.124/Ind/2023 & ITANo.35/Ind/2023 Million Trader Bhopal Page

MILLION TRADERS BHOPAL P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

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

disallowance is made by the CPC while processing the return u/s 143(1) therefore, the assessee had no occasion to produce the supporting evidence to show that the TCS was collected by the Excise Department in respect of the purchase made and accounted by the assessee. Page 4 of 24 ITA No.124/Ind/2023 & ITANo.35/Ind/2023 Million Trader Bhopal Page

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

disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 57,86,200/- claimed u/s 57 of the Act, although the grounds of appeal are drafted clumsily. The appellant on his own has declared income from contract works as business income and offered profit in terms of section

SUPREME AUTO 9INDIA) PVT,LTD,, INDORE vs. ITO1 (4), INDORE

In the result, the appealof assesseeis partly allowed in terms indicated above

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

section 56(2). However, we observe that in Para No. 1.3 and 2.2 of the assessment-order, the Ld. AO has mentioned that the assessee- company issued 3,92,200 number of shares but thereafter in final para No. 2.3, the Ld. AO has computed taxable income on the basis of 4,32,000 number of shares. Thus, there

DANISH HEALTH CARE P LTD ,UJJAIN vs. PR CIT -1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Danish Health Care Pr. Cit-1, Private Limited, Indore बनाम/ 76/27, Maxi Road, Industrial Area, Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaecd5554F Assessee By Ms.Ruchira Negi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2023

section 36(1)(va). Ld. AR fairly agreed that the assessee has not deposited employees’ contribution before due dates and in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), the same is disallowable. Faced with this situation, we agree that the PCIT has rightly invoked revisionary jurisdiction qua this issue

KANHAIYA LAL PANCHAL,RATLAM vs. BPL-W-(91)(95), RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2024-25 Kanhaiya Lal Panchal, Bpl-W-(91)(95) 1, Jadwasa Kala, बनाम/ Ratlam Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aqrpp0055D Assessee By Shri Kaide Kangsawala, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

200/- only and thereby disallowed the rebate of Rs. 22,336/-. The AO created demand of tax, cess and interest accordingly. The assessee filed a rectification application u/s 154 which was also rejected by AO vide order dated 19.03.2025. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first-appeal to CIT(A) but still did not get any relief. Now, the assessee has come

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance is therefore directed to be deleted. These grounds of the appellant are therefore allowed. The ld.DR has not controverted to this fact recorded by the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, looking to above findings, we do not find any infirmity in order of the ld.CIT(A), which is upheld, and these ground no.6 to 9 of the Revenue’s appeal stand

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance is therefore directed to be deleted. These grounds of the appellant are therefore allowed. The ld.DR has not controverted to this fact recorded by the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, looking to above findings, we do not find any infirmity in order of the ld.CIT(A), which is upheld, and these ground no.6 to 9 of the Revenue’s appeal stand

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance is therefore directed to be deleted. These grounds of the appellant are therefore allowed. The ld.DR has not controverted to this fact recorded by the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, looking to above findings, we do not find any infirmity in order of the ld.CIT(A), which is upheld, and these ground no.6 to 9 of the Revenue’s appeal stand

SHRI AVIJIT SHASTRI,INDOR vs. THE ITO 4(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance of the claim of Contribution towards recognized provident fund of Rs. 58212/- under Section 80C of Income Tax Act. The Appellant prays that the said addition be directed to be deleted. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) (“CIT(A)”) erred in confirming the action of Assessing

BANSAL PATHWAYS (DAMOH-KATNI) PVT LTD,HOSHANGABAD ROAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -1(1), BHOPAL, HOSHANGABAD ROAD

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity) as and by way second appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2023-24/1055815314(1) dated 29.04.2024 of Ld. CIT(A), Page 1 of 6 Bansal Pathways (Damoh-Katni) Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 655/Ind/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 passed

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

200 ÷ 3,83,080). Ld. AR submitted that the premium of Rs. 990/- received by assessee in preceding AY has been accepted by department without any objection. Therefore, the AO is wrong in raising objection in current year. Without prejudice, Ld. AR submitted that neither the assessee is obligated to explain fair value for section

THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S MOENUS TEXTILE PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10

section 40a(ia) which otherwise proves that the assessee has complied all the mandatory provision of the act. Therefore, the Ld AO's contention that PAN was not produced by the assessee to these party does not hold good. Similarly the Ld AO's contention that no written agreement with parties were not produced also not has much importance where

M.P.GRAMIN BANK ,BHESOLA vs. THE ACIT,CPC -TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 10 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

200(3) of the act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO charged late-fee u/s 234E of the act, of varying amounts as per period of delay committed by assessees, in the intimations issued u/s 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Against such intimations u/s 200A, the assessees submitted applications for rectification u/s 154 of the Act, but, however

M.P.GRAMIN BANK ,LABRIYA vs. THE ACIT,CPC -TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 10 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

200(3) of the act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO charged late-fee u/s 234E of the act, of varying amounts as per period of delay committed by assessees, in the intimations issued u/s 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Against such intimations u/s 200A, the assessees submitted applications for rectification u/s 154 of the Act, but, however