THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowing entire deprecation claimed by appellant and secondly not justified in estimating NP @ 5%. Thus, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 2,04,60,184/- is Deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed.” 18. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the facts discussed above squarely establish that

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

204 4 Addition for non-genuine exempted capital gain 44,81,373 5 Addition of amounts paid by WCS 35,50,000 6 Disallowance u/s 40A(3) 14,34,307 Assessed income 8,42,92,165 4. Aggrieved by the additions/disallowances made by AO, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and succeeded partly. Now, the revenue has come

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. ARIHANT CAPITAL MARKETS LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of

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

204 and held that Section 14A cannot be invoked when no exempt income was earned. Redington India Ltd. V/s Addl. CIT (2016) 97 CCH 0219 203 – 208 (Chennai) Overruling the Circular 5 of 2014 in respect of 14A – held that the provision of section 14A r.w.r. 8D cannot be made applicable in a vacuum i.e. in the absence of exempt

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

SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR BAFNA,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 637/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

204 CTR (Raj) 399, wherein it was held that when no document was annexed in support of claim of deduction, mere claim of deduction under section 54F could not be allowed. It cannot be the intention of the legislature to accept whatever assessee says without proper evidence in support of that claim. Accordingly, the action of the AO was confirmed

MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. ACIT- (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023 AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Ground No. 3 to 5: 14. In these grounds, the revenue has challenged the CIT(A)’s action of deleting

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023 AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Ground No. 3 to 5: 14. In these grounds, the revenue has challenged the CIT(A)’s action of deleting

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023 AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Ground No. 3 to 5: 14. In these grounds, the revenue has challenged the CIT(A)’s action of deleting

ACIT CIRCLE-2(I), BHOPAL vs. MAPAAEX REMEDIES (P) LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year 2014-15 Acit, Circle -2(1) Mapaaex Remedies Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Hig-500, E-7, Arera Colony, Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan No. Aaecm 2274 P Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv & Gagan Tiwari, Adv. Date Of Hearing 17.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26.12.2022

section 80IC also do not require that use of self owned plant and machinery is a must. 7.9 It has been held by Hon 'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Taj Fire Works Industry (2006) 204 CTR (Mad) 108 that use/availability of self owned Plant and Machinery is not necessary for manufacture of goods. Thus the reasoning of disallowance

THE ACIT, -2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assesse is disposed off in terms of

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 801B(10) on the project D K Honey home wherein the project was completed on 31.12.2008 but the completion certificate was issued by the local authorities on a subsequent date. The aforesaid issue first arose in the assessment made for A.Y 2005-06 and A.Y 2008-09 and the same has been decided

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

204/-, Disallowance u/s 40A(1)(a) for non deduction of TDS on commission expenditure at Rs.3,12,513/- and disallowance of interest expenses at Rs.3,16,358/-. Income assessed at Rs.29,14,01,880/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging all the additions except for disallowance of commission expenses

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

204/-, Disallowance u/s 40A(1)(a) for non deduction of TDS on commission expenditure at Rs.3,12,513/- and disallowance of interest expenses at Rs.3,16,358/-. Income assessed at Rs.29,14,01,880/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging all the additions except for disallowance of commission expenses

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

204/-, Disallowance u/s 40A(1)(a) for non deduction of TDS on commission expenditure at Rs.3,12,513/- and disallowance of interest expenses at Rs.3,16,358/-. Income assessed at Rs.29,14,01,880/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging all the additions except for disallowance of commission expenses

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

204/-, Disallowance u/s 40A(1)(a) for non deduction of TDS on commission expenditure at Rs.3,12,513/- and disallowance of interest expenses at Rs.3,16,358/-. Income assessed at Rs.29,14,01,880/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging all the additions except for disallowance of commission expenses

MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD ,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT -2- (1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

section 80IC also do not require that use of self owned plant and machinery is a must. 7.9 It has been held by Hon 'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Taj Fire Works Industry (2006) 204 CTR (Mad) 108 that use/availability of self owned Plant and Machinery is not necessary for manufacture of goods. Thus the reasoning of disallowance