RNG CONSTRUCTION CO.,INDIRA NAGAR vs. DCIT, DCIT-CPC

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshirng Construction Co. Dcit बनाम/ 14, Sector-A, Vs. Indira Nagar, Mandideep (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqfr9084B Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025

section 145A of the act, it has been vehemently held that the disallowance is attracted u/s 43B even if the assessee has not passed service-tax through P&L A/c: (i) CIT, Agra Vs. Chhata Sugar Co. Ltd. (2019) 104 taxmann.com 206

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

section 40A(3). Thus, considering entire conspectus of case, we do not find any valid reason to make interference with the deletion of 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

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

section 40A(3). Thus, considering entire conspectus of case, we do not find any valid reason to make interference with the deletion of 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

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

section 40A(3). Thus, considering entire conspectus of case, we do not find any valid reason to make interference with the deletion of 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

MANSA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,BHOPAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, 5(3), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Mansa Builders & Income-Tax Officer, Developers, 5(3), 1, Bhopal C/O Radha Krishna बनाम/ Traders, Vs. Bhanpur Square, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan : Aatfm5948C Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Adv. & Shri N.D. Patwa, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024

disallowed without appreciating the fact that service tax stands on the same footing as excise duty or sales tax vis-a-vis the phrase 'any tax, duty, cess or fee (by whatever name called)' used in Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and allowable only on actual payment basis." 3. The respondent assessee engaged in the business

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 may be invoked which is not the case here at all 4.19 With due respect, it is submitted that the allegation that the appellant has infused its own money in the grab of unsecured loon is without any basis and not correct and merely on the basis of conjecture or surmises. It is also undisputed fact that

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 may be invoked which is not the case here at all 4.19 With due respect, it is submitted that the allegation that the appellant has infused its own money in the grab of unsecured loon is without any basis and not correct and merely on the basis of conjecture or surmises. It is also undisputed fact that

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 may be invoked which is not the case here at all 4.19 With due respect, it is submitted that the allegation that the appellant has infused its own money in the grab of unsecured loon is without any basis and not correct and merely on the basis of conjecture or surmises. It is also undisputed fact that

M/S RANA & JOSHI BUILDTECH P LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pr. Cit-1 Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (Formerly Known As M/S Rana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) Vs. 218 Civil Lines, Below Dainik Bhaskar Office Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcr9858P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .09.2024

206/- as against the return income of Rs.604,220/-. Thereafter Pr. CIT noted that the assesse company made payment in cash which was required to be disallowed and added back to the assesse’s income u/s 40A(3) which was not done. The AO has passed order u/s 143(3) dated 18.12.2017 without considering disallowance u/s 40A(3) which renders

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

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

206, Shrishti Complex, Zone-II, Bhopal M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) PAN No.AADCA1214E Revenue by Shri S.S. Mantri, CIT Appellant by S/Shri Ashish Goyal N.D. Patwa, ARs Date of Hearing 06.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement 16.02.2021 O R D E R PER BENCH The above captioned appeals by the revenue pertaining to Assessment Years

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

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

206, Shrishti Complex, Zone-II, Bhopal M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) PAN No.AADCA1214E Revenue by Shri S.S. Mantri, CIT Appellant by S/Shri Ashish Goyal N.D. Patwa, ARs Date of Hearing 06.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement 16.02.2021 O R D E R PER BENCH The above captioned appeals by the revenue pertaining to Assessment Years

SANTOSH CHATURVEDI,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purpose

section 143(1) of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961, and intimations were issued by the\nCPC wherein certain additions/disallowances were made.\nSr. No Particulars\nA.Y 2018-19\nA.Y 2019-20\n1\nAddition u/s 43B on account of\nGST, PF, ESIC\nRs.57,74,491/-\nRs.57,30,206/-\n2\nAddition on account of PF\nand\nESIC\ncontribution u/s\n36(1)(va)\nRs.82

SANTOSH CHATURVEDI,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purpose

disallowance of\ngst u/s.43B is unjustified.\n8. The appellant seeks to leave, add, alter, amend, abandon or\nsubstitute any of the above grounds during the hearing of the\nappeal\".\n3.\nRecord of Hearing\n3.1 Since facts and circumstances are more or less common\nboth the appeals were heard together for sake of ease.\n3.2 The hearing in the matter took

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

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

SAPAN SHAH,INDORE vs. ACIT-4(I), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

206,60,987/Ind/2019 1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,39,230/- under section 68, whereas section 68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that

PRAYANK JAIN,INDORE vs. ACIT5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

206,60,987/Ind/2019 1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,39,230/- under section 68, whereas section 68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that

DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

206,60,987/Ind/2019 1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,39,230/- under section 68, whereas section 68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that