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

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

RAMESH ANAND,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Ramesh Anand Ito, 4(1), C/O G.J. Shah & Co., 416, बनाम/ Manas Bhawan Main, 11, Indore Vs. Rnt Marg, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aeapa1661F Appellant By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri K.C. Selvamni Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.11.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Ii, Indore, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Dated 16.11.2017 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On Ramesh Anand

disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs.16,32,559/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act paid to following three companies: Name Amount M/s Bajaj Finance Ltd. 10,79,202/- 4 Ramesh Anand M/s Chola Mandalam investment 25,284/- Citi Finance consumer Finance India Ltd. 5,28,073/- Total 16,32,559/- 8. The above interest expenditure was claimed/paid

DCIT 3 (1), BHOPAL vs. M/S NARMADA SWITCHGEAR P LTD , BHOPAL

Accordingly, this ground is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit-3(1) M/S Narmada Switchgear Bhopal Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Plot No.3, Industrial Estate, Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aabcn0635N Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2023

202/- to the total income of the appellant. 5.1 The appellant submitted that the Ld. A.O. has compared the percentage increase in expenses with the previous year. This is not correct method. It should be compared in relation to sales. It was explained to the Ld. A.O. that the appellant had been passing through a lean phase in past

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

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold and silver

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

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold and silver

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

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold and silver

SHRI OM PRAKASH PATIDAR (HUF),INDORE vs. THE ITO 2(4), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance of transfer expenses of Rs.2,00,000/- and the additions made in respect of the deposits made in the bank account of Rs.17,51,000/-. Rest of the additions were deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) for the assessee and the revenue had challenged the assessment order. Appeal of the revenue in ITA No.305/Ind/2017 dated 19.9.2018 was dismissed

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 IT Act, 1961 Business expenditure allowability of [onus to prove]. In course of assessment, assessee claimed deduction of expenses towards bricks, machinery repair, cartage, labour expenses etc. Assessing Officer disallowed 10 percent of said expenses on ground that insufficient evidence was adduced. Tribunal set- aside said ad-hoc disallowance on two grounds, firstly assessee

M/S AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD.,INDORE vs. THEDCIT 1(1) , INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

section 153C. 6.The assessee craves leave to add, alter, modify, substitute and/or withdraw all or any of the grounds of appeal at any stage of the appellate proceedings. Agrawal Transport Corporation (P) Ltd & Ors ITA Nos. 651, C.O.No.35/Ind/2019, 331/Ind/2018 & 895/Ind/2019 M/s Admanum Finance Ltd Assessment Year 2009-10 The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal 4. 1.That

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AVILABLE FINANCE LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

section 153C. 6.The assessee craves leave to add, alter, modify, substitute and/or withdraw all or any of the grounds of appeal at any stage of the appellate proceedings. Agrawal Transport Corporation (P) Ltd & Ors ITA Nos. 651, C.O.No.35/Ind/2019, 331/Ind/2018 & 895/Ind/2019 M/s Admanum Finance Ltd Assessment Year 2009-10 The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal 4. 1.That

DY. CIT -1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

section 153C. 6.The assessee craves leave to add, alter, modify, substitute and/or withdraw all or any of the grounds of appeal at any stage of the appellate proceedings. Agrawal Transport Corporation (P) Ltd & Ors ITA Nos. 651, C.O.No.35/Ind/2019, 331/Ind/2018 & 895/Ind/2019 M/s Admanum Finance Ltd Assessment Year 2009-10 The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal 4. 1.That

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. LIFE STYLE INFRATECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act is to be made only on the units which fail to comply with the conditions laid out u/s 80IB(10) of the Act which, in the instant case, relates to few flats and row houses, which were not able to satisfy the provisions of section 80IB

SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR SETHI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result appeal filed by the revenue being I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

disallowance of deduction u/s 24 claimed by the assessee on the rental income was sustained at Rs.7,92,350/-. 7. Now both the revenue and assessee are in cross appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 and revenue appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08. 8. We will first take up revenue’s appeals I.T.A.No.382/Ind/2014 & I.T.A.No. 383/Ind/2014 raising following common ground

THE ACIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR SETHI, INDORE

In the result appeal filed by the revenue being I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

disallowance of deduction u/s 24 claimed by the assessee on the rental income was sustained at Rs.7,92,350/-. 7. Now both the revenue and assessee are in cross appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 and revenue appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08. 8. We will first take up revenue’s appeals I.T.A.No.382/Ind/2014 & I.T.A.No. 383/Ind/2014 raising following common ground

THE ACIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR SETHI, INDORE

In the result appeal filed by the revenue being I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

disallowance of deduction u/s 24 claimed by the assessee on the rental income was sustained at Rs.7,92,350/-. 7. Now both the revenue and assessee are in cross appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 and revenue appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08. 8. We will first take up revenue’s appeals I.T.A.No.382/Ind/2014 & I.T.A.No. 383/Ind/2014 raising following common ground