M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 2(1) , INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before us. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company was incorporated in India on 13.09.1996. The assessee provides software development and maintenance services from STPI and SEZ registered units. The primary activities of the assessee relate to provision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAJEEV AJMERA, INDORE

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

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-3(1) Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Co No.23/Ind/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.51/Ind/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Dcit-3(1) Indore Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Assessee By Shri Mahendra Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2022 आदेश/ O R D E R

section 14A was clearly applicable on assessee's investment in shares and mutual fund wherefrom income was exempt.” Page 2 of 17 Shri Rajeev Ajmera ITA No.51/Ind/2018& CO.No.23/Ind/2018 Assessment year 2010-11 Ground No. 1: 5. In this Ground, the issue involved is the deduction of commission- expenditure of Rs. 1,74,50,000/- claimed by the assessee

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

215 ITR 81] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Mr. Abaraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [163 ITR 129] interpreting prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The High Court held, In this context, it must

THE DCIT, 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. MODERN LABORATORIES, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ ./ ./ I.T.A. No.277 & Co.16/Ind/2014 ./ "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09

disallowance of Rs. 31,91,080 as sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) are deleted , accordingly, Ground No. 1 and 1.1 of Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed. 9. Ground No. (ii) and (iii) of Revenue relates to deleting addition of Rs. 1,33,00,000 made under section 68 of the Act and Ground no. 2 of Cross

M/S. BCC ENTERPRISES (INDIA) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ITO-1(4), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14

disallowing apart of interest payments under section 14A was to be set aside”. 25. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. UTI Bank Limited (2013) 215

M/S. S.R. FERRO ALLOYS,JHABUA vs. THE PCIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

disallowance of depreciation by the AO in the scrutiny assessment of the lender company would not epso facto lead to the conclusion that the transactions of loan between the lender company and assesse is not genuine. The Pr. CIT has not even verified the balance sheet and bank account statement of the lender company to come to prima facie conclusion

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

Section 37(1) of the Act. 3. Development charges whether received or not would accrue to the assessee at the rate of Rs.170/- per Sq. Feet at par with 22 buyers of the plots and thus, the development charges would not be a charge on the assessee's profit as the same would be commensurately recoverable from the buyers

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

Section 37(1) of the Act. 3. Development charges whether received or not would accrue to the assessee at the rate of Rs.170/- per Sq. Feet at par with 22 buyers of the plots and thus, the development charges would not be a charge on the assessee's profit as the same would be commensurately recoverable from the buyers

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOO HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. Nos. 227 & 228/Ind/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & & 2011-12 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Prakash Asphalting & Toll Highway Limited, Income-Tax (Central)-I, 76, Mall Road, Mhow, Indore. Indore.

Section 14A cannot be invoked if earning of exempt income is based on certain uncertainty and contingencies. (b) If the investment has the potential of generating taxable income like short term capital gain, disallowance U/s. 14A could not be invoked. (c) If during the year under consideration, the assessee has not earned the exempt income, provision of sec.14A

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOO HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. Nos. 227 & 228/Ind/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & & 2011-12 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Prakash Asphalting & Toll Highway Limited, Income-Tax (Central)-I, 76, Mall Road, Mhow, Indore. Indore.

Section 14A cannot be invoked if earning of exempt income is based on certain uncertainty and contingencies. (b) If the investment has the potential of generating taxable income like short term capital gain, disallowance U/s. 14A could not be invoked. (c) If during the year under consideration, the assessee has not earned the exempt income, provision of sec.14A

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

disallowance of excess interest u/s 57 d. Details of amounts appearing in 26AS Statement 4. Further the A.O had - in its show cause notice dt./ 18/03/2015 also mentioned interest amount of Rs. 3479097/- in addition to Rs.7.00 Crores surrendered during the Survey. From all the above it is clear that the A.D had obtained the details of all the heads

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

disallowance of excess interest u/s 57 d. Details of amounts appearing in 26AS Statement 4. Further the A.O had - in its show cause notice dt./ 18/03/2015 also mentioned interest amount of Rs. 3479097/- in addition to Rs.7.00 Crores surrendered during the Survey. From all the above it is clear that the A.D had obtained the details of all the heads

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

disallowance of excess interest u/s 57 d. Details of amounts appearing in 26AS Statement 4. Further the A.O had - in its show cause notice dt./ 18/03/2015 also mentioned interest amount of Rs. 3479097/- in addition to Rs.7.00 Crores surrendered during the Survey. From all the above it is clear that the A.D had obtained the details of all the heads

M/S. BHATIA GLOBAL TRADING LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibhatia Global Trading Ltd. Dcit 1(1) Through Official Liquidator Indore Old Cia Building, 1St Floor Vs. Opp. G.P.O. Residency Area, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacb6751 C Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .07.2023

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act can be made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income), as the revenue has not been accepted the said decision and has preferred an SLP against the said decision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in view of the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2022 to Section

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

disallowing said payments under section 40A (3)- Whether on facts, impugned revisional order did not require any interference- Held, yes [Para-16] [ In favour of revenue] 4.0 Therefore, in view of the above discussion I am of the considered opinion that the order dated: 06.01.2016 for A.Y. 2013-14 is erroneous in so far as it is also prejudicial

SIDDHLAXMI SAKH SAHAKARITA MY,,INDORE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) W,INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowing the deduction under sub- clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 80P of the Act is under challenged. 3. We have heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. 4. The assessee is a credit co-operative society providing credit facilities to its members. The interest income from the surplus invested in short

M/S. DEVI SHAKUNTALA THKARAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Devi Shakuntala Dcit Thakral Charitable (Exemption) बनाम/ Foundation Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaatd2943B

215 ITR 81 – order pronounced on 17.10.1994 – Para 12 – “From the aforesaid, it can well be said that the well-settled principle in considering the question as to whether an order is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue or not is to address oneself to the question whether the legitimate revenue due to the exchequer has been realised

KAMAL NAYAN AGRAWAL,BETUL vs. THE DCIT, ITARSI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Kamal Nayan Agrawal, Dcit, 218, Sadguru Niketan

section 154(7) and there would be no illegality. Therefore, to ascertain correct state of affairs, we confronted the Ld. AR about the details of intimation dated 10.04.2014 but the Ld. AR could not spell out satisfactorily. Hence, in absence of clear details coming before us, we are not satisfied with the claim projected by assessee in this ground; resultantly