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

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

section 40A(3) and no disallowance u/s 40A(3) can be made in the hands of the assessee.” 17. We therefore respectfully following the judgment in the case of Gurdas Garg (supra) and Tirupati Construction (supra) hold that having regard to business expediency, the payment in cash for purchase of land through registered deed was allowable. Thus, considering the facts

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 w.e.f. 01/07/2012 whereas the relevant A.Y. in the case of the assessee is A. Y. 2010-11 and also the assessee has not produced the certificate from C.A in prescribed proforma as envisaged in provision

RAJESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,DEWAS vs. ITO DEWAS, DEWAS

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2015-16 Rajesh Kumar Agrawal, Ito 105, Agra Mumbai Road, Dewas बनाम/ Dewas Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abopa3336J Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

3 of 6 Rajesh Kumar Agrawal ITA No. 532/Ind/2025 - AY 2015-16 1st proviso to Section 201(1): “Provided that any person, including the principal officer of a company, who fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter on the sum paid to a payee

M/S. PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

3), 43B etc of the act and other specified disallowances, related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI-A is admissible on the profit so enhanced by the disallowance. 2. Further reliance is placed on the following judgments a. Kewal Construction [2013] 354 ITR 13 (Gujarat) “Even if a certain expenditure which was incurred by the assessee

M/S. PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

3), 43B etc of the act and other specified disallowances, related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI-A is admissible on the profit so enhanced by the disallowance. 2. Further reliance is placed on the following judgments a. Kewal Construction [2013] 354 ITR 13 (Gujarat) “Even if a certain expenditure which was incurred by the assessee

M/S PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

3), 43B etc of the act and other specified disallowances, related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI-A is admissible on the profit so enhanced by the disallowance. 2. Further reliance is placed on the following judgments a. Kewal Construction [2013] 354 ITR 13 (Gujarat) “Even if a certain expenditure which was incurred by the assessee

M/S. SOM DISTILLERIES & BREWERIES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result Ground No.2 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Pan : Aabcs3374B

3. Through ITA No.516/Ind/2018 revenue has raised following grounds of appeal; "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeal) has erred in: 1. "Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective in nature and is applicable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1) , BHOPAL vs. M/S. SOM DISTILLERIES & BREWERIES LTD., BHOPAL

In the result Ground No.2 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Pan : Aabcs3374B

3. Through ITA No.516/Ind/2018 revenue has raised following grounds of appeal; "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeal) has erred in: 1. "Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective in nature and is applicable

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

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

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

3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. 94 ITD 91, Property Quip corporation

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

3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. 94 ITD 91, Property Quip corporation

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

3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. 94 ITD 91, Property Quip corporation

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

3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. 94 ITD 91, Property Quip corporation

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

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

3 of 9 Chems Deal INC Pvt. Ltd. Page 4 of 9 02. M/s Om Rudra Priya Holiday Resort Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income tax ITA No. 416/JP/2018 54 CCH 0597 ITAT Jaipur 03. Principal Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Shivshahi Punarvasan Prakalp Ltd. (2023) 456 ITR 336 (Bom). 4. Shri Hari Kishan Goyal

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 201(1A) of the Act, therefore, would not assume the character of business expenditure and cannot be regarded as a compensatory payment as contended by learned counsel for the assessee.” (ii) Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT(1992) 196 ITR 406 (Bombay High Court): The Hon’ble Court held thus: “3. The point stands concluded against the assessee

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

3 of 6 Friends Associates Page 4 of 6 31.3.12 9 Shri Ram Charan 364 375000 375000 Pandey 31.3.12 10 Shri Mohit Prasar 365 350000 350000 31.3.12 11 Shiv Shakti Enterprises 366 460000 460000 Grant Total 1,00,82,950 1,00,82,950 5.1 Thus the AO made the disallowance of Rs.1