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

disallowed by the AO on account of non- deduction of Tax at Source. Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act states as under, (ia) thirty per cent of any sum payable to a resident, on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction, has not been

ACIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LTD., BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Som Distilleries & Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Breweries Limited, 1(1), Vs. Som House, Bhopal. 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay:2014-15 Acit (Central)-1, Som Distilleries & बनाम/ Bhopal Breweries Limited, Vs. Som House, 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

section 201(1). But, on perusal of Form No. 26A, the AO found that UBL has declared income of Rs. 2,59,72,000/- only in its return of income filed to department. Accordingly, the AO did not grant benefit of differential of Rs. 47,86,252/- [Rs. 3,07,58,252/- (-) Rs. 2,59,72,000/-] and made disallowance

SOM DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Som Distilleries & Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Breweries Limited, 1(1), Vs. Som House, Bhopal. 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay:2014-15 Acit (Central)-1, Som Distilleries & बनाम/ Bhopal Breweries Limited, Vs. Som House, 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

section 201(1). But, on perusal of Form No. 26A, the AO found that UBL has declared income of Rs. 2,59,72,000/- only in its return of income filed to department. Accordingly, the AO did not grant benefit of differential of Rs. 47,86,252/- [Rs. 3,07,58,252/- (-) Rs. 2,59,72,000/-] and made disallowance

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

201 (sq.ft addition to 3- MPEB developm charges 3- .) the sale 14] deposit ent per sq.ft 14] considerat account charges ion in AY (Rs.) account 2013-14 (Rs.) (Rs.) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) = (E-G) (I) =(G/D) (J) 1 Meeta 421 8200 40,40,000 44, 2,87,000 13,94,000 170 228 Rajesh

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

201 (sq.ft addition to 3- MPEB developm charges 3- .) the sale 14] deposit ent per sq.ft 14] considerat account charges ion in AY (Rs.) account 2013-14 (Rs.) (Rs.) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) = (E-G) (I) =(G/D) (J) 1 Meeta 421 8200 40,40,000 44, 2,87,000 13,94,000 170 228 Rajesh

THE DCIT CIRCLE 5(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S L N MALVIYA INFRA PROJECTS P LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit, Circle 5(1) M/S. L.N. Malviya Infra Projects Bhopal Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.29, F/F Sector, Dwarka Vs. New Delhi

section 37(1) of the Act but the said expenditure cannot be regarded as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assesse. The income tax liability as well as interest as income tax liability cannot be allowed as expenditure incurred for the business of the assesse. 8. We further note that this tribunal in case

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act even though the first proviso of section 201(1) of the IT Act was inserted

SHRI JANKILAL,UJJAIN vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jankilal Pr.Cit-1 बनाम/ 12, Chimanganj Mandi Indore Agar Road, Ujjain Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aczpj 2632 A Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

section 201(1) read with Rule 31ACB so as to come out of TDS default; and (c) That the assesee has not supplied correct PAN of M/s Sagar Security Services. Therefore, the expenditure of Rs. 1,14,433/- attracted disallowance

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 TESLA TRANSFORMERS (INDIA) LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 3(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Tesla Transformers Acit 3(1) (India) Ltd. Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aagct 8705 J Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.03.2023

disallowance of delayed payment on account of ESI/PF. 7. The assessee has claimed that the payments towards Employees Contribution were made before due date filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. However, it is not disputed that there was a delay in payment as per respective acts of ESI/PF. This fact is recorded

NATRAJ DAL MILL,INDORE vs. ACIT 5 (1), INDORE

In the result, Appeal of the assessee namely Natraj Dal Mill in

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2019-20 Natraj Dal Mill Acit 5(1) Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadfn3699P Appellant By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Respondent By Shri Amit Soni, Sr.Dr Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri Ashok Somani Dy. Cit, Ps, Indore Bangalore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Agtps5575R Appellant By S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gour, Ars Respondent By Shri Amit Soni, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.12.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad:

201 3) 21 ITJ 372 (Trib. - Indore)- Employees contribution to provident Fund- Employees contribution to Provident Fund -Employees contribution to Provident Fund - Deletion of second proviso to section 43B- HELD-In view of CIT v Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2010) 14 ITJ 133(SC), deletion of second proviso is retrospective-Therefore, even if employees contribution is deposited before due date

SHRI ASHOK SOMANI,INDORE vs. THE DY CIT,PS , BANGALORE

In the result, Appeal of the assessee namely Natraj Dal Mill in

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2019-20 Natraj Dal Mill Acit 5(1) Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadfn3699P Appellant By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Respondent By Shri Amit Soni, Sr.Dr Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri Ashok Somani Dy. Cit, Ps, Indore Bangalore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Agtps5575R Appellant By S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gour, Ars Respondent By Shri Amit Soni, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.12.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad:

201 3) 21 ITJ 372 (Trib. - Indore)- Employees contribution to provident Fund- Employees contribution to Provident Fund -Employees contribution to Provident Fund - Deletion of second proviso to section 43B- HELD-In view of CIT v Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2010) 14 ITJ 133(SC), deletion of second proviso is retrospective-Therefore, even if employees contribution is deposited before due date

SANTOSH RATHORE,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

disallowance\nof expenses/loss or increase in income, the assessee would have certainly\ngone in first-appeal and challenged the legality of original/re-assessment\nproceeding also. But in present case, the assessee had no necessity or\noccasion to challenge the illegality of original/re-assessment proceeding.\nHowever, since the PCIT has taken revisionary action u/s 263, set aside\nAO's order and given direction

ANDRITZ HYDRO P LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing

Section 37 may, in the circumstances of a particular case, cover an amount which is a “loss” even though the said amount has not gone out from the pocket of the assessee. Thus, we are of the view that when the Andritz Hydro Private Ltd. ITANo.198 & 199/Ind/2020 assessee co. meets all the requirements viz. it has been consistently following

CHEMS DEAL INC P LTD. ,INDORE vs. THE CIT-1, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Chems Deal Inc Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 3Rd Floor Tulsi 622 Creater Indore Vs. Brajeshwari Colony Pipliahana Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aadcc 6578 R Assessee By Shri Manjeet Sachdeva & Avinash Gaur, Ars Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

disallowed u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act in view of the second proviso which reads as under: “Provided further that where an assessee fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII- B on any such sum but is not deemed to be an assessee in default under

SOM DISTILLERIES PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(3), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

Section 145 are applicable. The books of accounts are also not been rejected, hence the adhoc disallowance are wholly unlawful and unjustified. The assessee submits that the disallowance is neither justified nor lawful. From the perusal of the chart, the increase in mainly on account Page 32 of 54 Som Distilleries Private Limited I.T.A. Nos. 272 & 289/Ind/2023

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL , BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

Section 145 are applicable. The books of accounts are also not been rejected, hence the adhoc disallowance are wholly unlawful and unjustified. The assessee submits that the disallowance is neither justified nor lawful. From the perusal of the chart, the increase in mainly on account Page 32 of 54 Som Distilleries Private Limited I.T.A. Nos. 272 & 289/Ind/2023

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

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

1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed