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)

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

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

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

M/S. FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD.,DHAR vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 M/S. Flexituff International Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd, Vs. Income Tax-1, C-41-50, Sez, Sector-3, Indore Pithampur, Dist. Dhar (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Aaacn5986H Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit Assessee By Shri Manjit Sachdeva & Avinash Gaur, Advocates Date Of Hearing 26.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 14.05.2019 O R D E R

200/- which was actually allowable. B. It is further found that disallowance of Rs.15,82,154/- made under the head interest paid on income tax which was debited by the assessee in P&L A/c as finance cost. In view of section

THE ACIT 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S PARAG FANS & COOLING SYSTEMS LTD., DEWAS

In the result appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

200/- after adding various disallowances. For Assessment Year 2014-15 the income was assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2016 at Rs.2,67,25,902/- after adding various disallowances. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. Now the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset Ld. Departmental Representative supported

THE ACIT 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S PARAG FANS & COOLING SYSTEMS LTD., DEWAS

In the result appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

200/- after adding various disallowances. For Assessment Year 2014-15 the income was assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2016 at Rs.2,67,25,902/- after adding various disallowances. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. Now the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset Ld. Departmental Representative supported

M/S. C.K. COTSPIN PVT. LTD.,BURHANPUR vs. THE DCIT, KHANDWA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

disallowance could be made under section 36 (1) (iii) of the Act. We find that the AO has not been able to establish the nexus between interest bearing funds utilized for non business purpose as held in above quoted decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court. M/s. C. K. Cotspin Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT-Khandwa/ I.T.A. No.816/Ind/2014/A.Y.:11-12 Page

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