INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAR vs. SHRI SUNIL KUMAR JAIN PROP. M/S SUNIL TRADERS, KANWAN, BADNAGAR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowing creditors shown on the ground that liability has ceased to exist. The assessee submitted that trading transaction in this case is not covered under Section 41(1) of the Act. Further that, on 16.12.2016, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was further issued to the assessee asking for the details already asked for mentioned hereinabove alongwith confirmation

M/S J.C.SHARMA & SONS,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani

1) of the act. Continuing his submission, Ld. AR carried out attention to Para No. 4 of the assessment-order reproduced below: Page 2 of 4 J.C. Sharma & Sons Assessment Year 2016-17 “4. It is seen from the audited books that Rs.14,221/- has been debited as interest on TDS which is not a permitted expense and the same

M/S. FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD.,DHAR vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 M/S. Flexituff International Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd, Vs. Income Tax-1, C-41-50, Sez, Sector-3, Indore Pithampur, Dist. Dhar (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Aaacn5986H Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit Assessee By Shri Manjit Sachdeva & Avinash Gaur, Advocates Date Of Hearing 26.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 14.05.2019 O R D E R

221/- for A.Y. 2012-13 in place of Rs. 12,51,79,200/- which was actually allowable. B. It is further found that disallowance of Rs.15,82,154/- made under the head interest paid on income tax which was debited by the assessee in P&L A/c as finance cost. In view of section 115JB of Income

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI RAUNAK MARU, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

1) during the regular assessment proceedings but also that the entire material was already available with the erstwhile LD. AO and was also duly considered by him while passing the regular assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A.It is a settled legal proposition than when the LD. AO had applied his mind and passed the original assessment order and there

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1,, INDORE vs. SHRI RAJUL BHARGAVA, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

1) during the regular assessment proceedings but also that the entire material was already available with the erstwhile LD. AO and was also duly considered by him while passing the regular assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A.It is a settled legal proposition than when the LD. AO had applied his mind and passed the original assessment order and there

SHRI PRASHANT AGRAWAL,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT -I , BHOPAL

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowances which an assessee feels aggrieved with. 23. As far as absence of discussion in the assessment order is concerned, this is what has been laid down by this court in the case of Rayon Silk Mills v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 155 :— "In the first instance it was contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the very premise

SMT ANUPAMA ASSWA,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकर अपील सं. / I.T.A. No. 59/Ind/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Smt. Anupama Asawa, Pcit-I, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs.

disallowances which an assessee feels aggrieved with. 23. As far as absence of discussion in the assessment order is concerned, this is what has been laid down by this court in the case of Rayon Silk Mills v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 155 :— "In the first instance it was contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the very premise

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SUJALPUR MANDI vs. THE ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowances which an assessee feels aggrieved with. 23. As far as absence of discussion in the assessment order is concerned, this is what has been laid down by this court in the case of Rayon Silk Mills v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 155 :— "In the first instance it was contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the very premise

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SHUJALPUR MANDI vs. ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowances which an assessee feels aggrieved with. 23. As far as absence of discussion in the assessment order is concerned, this is what has been laid down by this court in the case of Rayon Silk Mills v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 155 :— "In the first instance it was contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the very premise

M/S. YATHARTH INFRASTRUCTURES (P) LTD.,UJJAIN vs. PR. CIT, UJJAIN

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowances which an assessee feels aggrieved with. 23. As far as absence of discussion in the assessment order is concerned, this is what has been laid down by this court in the case of Rayon Silk Mills v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 155 :— "In the first instance it was contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the very premise

M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT -CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

221/- was also excessive and the further disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the Learned CIT(A) is patently wrong and uncalled and requires to be deleted. 3. Ground No.3- disallowance made out of the colliery and office general expenses for Rs. 5,65,263/-. 3.1 The ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the AO’s action

M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT RANGE 1(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

221/- was also excessive and the further disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the Learned CIT(A) is patently wrong and uncalled and requires to be deleted. 3. Ground No.3- disallowance made out of the colliery and office general expenses for Rs. 5,65,263/-. 3.1 The ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the AO’s action

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P LTD., INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

221/- was also excessive and the further disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the Learned CIT(A) is patently wrong and uncalled and requires to be deleted. 3. Ground No.3- disallowance made out of the colliery and office general expenses for Rs. 5,65,263/-. 3.1 The ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the AO’s action

THE DCIT-1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

221/- was also excessive and the further disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the Learned CIT(A) is patently wrong and uncalled and requires to be deleted. 3. Ground No.3- disallowance made out of the colliery and office general expenses for Rs. 5,65,263/-. 3.1 The ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the AO’s action

THE ACIT 4 (1), INDORE vs. M/S SINGNET INDUSTRIES LTD , INDORE

In the result ground no 2 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

221/- to the total income of the assessee, which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and also perused the materials available on record. ITA No.357/Ind/2020 (ACIT vs. M/s. Singnet Industries Ltd.) A.Y.– 2017-18 - 4 - 5. Before the First

DIVINE INFRACREATION & TRADING (P) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-5(1) INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance of unsecured loan u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when as identity, creditworthiness of the loan providing companies and genuineness of transactions were not established by the assessee. ITA Nos. 730 & 656/Ind/2019 (M/s. Divine Infracreation & Trading Pvt. Ltd.) A.Y.– 2011-12 - 3 - 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT-5(1) INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION & TRADING (P) LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance of unsecured loan u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when as identity, creditworthiness of the loan providing companies and genuineness of transactions were not established by the assessee. ITA Nos. 730 & 656/Ind/2019 (M/s. Divine Infracreation & Trading Pvt. Ltd.) A.Y.– 2011-12 - 3 - 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S NEO SACK LTD vs. THE ACIT 4(2),

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing No

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

221/- holding that the said amounts have been paid within the stipulated time u/s 139(1) of the Income tax Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying the amendment to proviso to section 43B made by the Finance Act, 2003 retrospectively inspite of the facts that the amendment