THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 147 of the Act and, thereafter, concluded that the losses obtained by the assessee on NMCE platform were contrived CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 losses and those losses were incurred by executing the synchronized trades dealing in illiquid commodities only. He also alleged that the losses were incurred with a specific intention to reduce taxable income by setting

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 147 of the Act and, thereafter, concluded that the losses obtained by the assessee on NMCE platform were contrived CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 losses and those losses were incurred by executing the synchronized trades dealing in illiquid commodities only. He also alleged that the losses were incurred with a specific intention to reduce taxable income by setting

INFOBEANS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE, M.P.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed being devoid of

Bench: Sh. Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

section 14(2A) , prior to working out disallowance as per Rule 8D of the Rules 62 . 23. The Ld AR rested

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-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

23. The Ld. DR submitted that for earning investment of Rs.18,65,61,000/- the assessee has suo moto disallowed such amount of Rs.20,37,506/-. In fact, the current investments were Rs.14,11,59,91,000/- and for such exorbitant investment the assesses has not invoked the disallowance under 14A read with Rule 8D. Therefore, the Assessing Officer

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT-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

23. The Ld. DR submitted that for earning investment of Rs.18,65,61,000/- the assessee has suo moto disallowed such amount of Rs.20,37,506/-. In fact, the current investments were Rs.14,11,59,91,000/- and for such exorbitant investment the assesses has not invoked the disallowance under 14A read with Rule 8D. Therefore, the Assessing Officer

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

23. The Ld. DR submitted that for earning investment of Rs.18,65,61,000/- the assessee has suo moto disallowed such amount of Rs.20,37,506/-. In fact, the current investments were Rs.14,11,59,91,000/- and for such exorbitant investment the assesses has not invoked the disallowance under 14A read with Rule 8D. Therefore, the Assessing Officer

THE ACIT 3(2), INDORE vs. M/S. SIMRAN DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ito-3(2), M/S. Simran Developers Indore 402, Mark Building, बनाम/ Saket Square, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Ackfs 1946 B Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 16.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

23,26,323/- on account of disallowance out of expenses. The AO made the disallowance @ 10% out of the development expenses. The AO made the disallowance without any basis. The appellant firm is a Real Estate Developer. Being the real estate work, the appellant engaged the labour and contractors for doing the work. TDS was deducted on the payments made

MUDIT KUMAR BAJAJ,UJJAIN vs. ITO-1(2), UJJAIN

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aezpb2621P Assessee By Ms. Nupur Ladha & Shri Vaibhav Siroliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2024 O R D E R

23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has therefore upheld the constitutional validity of section 40A(3) of the Act and has held that the provisions are not intended to restrict the business activities and restraint so provided are only intended to curb the chances and opportunities to use or create black money and the same should not be regarded

SHRADDHA SAKH SAHKARI SANSTHA,BARWANI vs. THE ITO, SENDHWA, SENDHWA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

23: (1987) 13 AIR 306(SC).\n3. On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative has\nvehemently objected to the condonation of the delay and submitted\nthat this is a case of negligence on the part of the assessee which\ncannot be accepted as a reasonable cause for delay of 349 days in\nfiling the present appeal.\n4. We have considered

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

section 68 does not permit any addition qua the opening balances which are carried forward from earlier year and not accepted during the year. Ld. CIT(A) has rightly taken into account the decision of (i) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Usha Stud Farms (301 ITR 384), (ii) Shri Vardhman Overseas Page

JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 194C disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is attracted ? 5. The issues involved in various grounds raised by parties are identified and tabulated thus: No. Issue A.Y. Assessee’s Revenue’s Ground No. Ground No. 1 Unexplained investment in the form of cash loans 2013-14 1,2,3 and notional interest thereon

THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE vs. JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 194C disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is attracted ? 5. The issues involved in various grounds raised by parties are identified and tabulated thus: No. Issue A.Y. Assessee’s Revenue’s Ground No. Ground No. 1 Unexplained investment in the form of cash loans 2013-14 1,2,3 and notional interest thereon

DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S MAA UMIYA AGRITECH PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit 1(1) M/S. Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Indore 119, A.B. Road, Aloo Pyaj Mandi, Vs. Indore (Appellant / (Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn8230F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) situation where the bank has “indirectly” met the cost of asset, if not directly. Therefore, according to him, the lower authorities have rightly disallowed depreciation to assessee. 19. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the provisions of section

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) situation where the bank has “indirectly” met the cost of asset, if not directly. Therefore, according to him, the lower authorities have rightly disallowed depreciation to assessee. 19. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the provisions of section

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) situation where the bank has “indirectly” met the cost of asset, if not directly. Therefore, according to him, the lower authorities have rightly disallowed depreciation to assessee. 19. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the provisions of section

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) situation where the bank has “indirectly” met the cost of asset, if not directly. Therefore, according to him, the lower authorities have rightly disallowed depreciation to assessee. 19. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the provisions of section

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) situation where the bank has “indirectly” met the cost of asset, if not directly. Therefore, according to him, the lower authorities have rightly disallowed depreciation to assessee. 19. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the provisions of section