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

VIJAY KUMAR PAREKH,INDORE vs. WARD1(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivijay Kumar Parekh Ito-Ward -1(1) 406-407 Apollo Tower, 2Mg Indore Road Vs. Indore-452001 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afkpp 3277M Assessee By Shri Abhinava Jain & Sudhir Padliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2024

disallowance of claim of set off of loss under the head income from other sources against the business income of the assessee for year under consideration. Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee filed a petition u/s 154 on 5th August 2014 and thereafter did not receive any communication from the department/CPC. Only when the assessee came to know about

RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 5, SEHORE, SEHORE

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

disallowed under section 69 of the Income tax Act, 1961 as "unexplained investments", to be taxed as per the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income tax Act, 1961." 2.3 That it is also recorded in the “Impugned Assessment Order” that following opportunities were given to the assessee which is tabulated & is reproduced herein : " 1. Details of opportunities given Type

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

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 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

M/S. SANWARIA AGROILS LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

disallowance of initial depreciation under section 32 (1) (iia) of Rs.1, 20, 20, 000/-is made by the AO was confirmed. 23. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that electricity is produced and, commercially tradeable and therefore it was ‘article or thing’ within the meaning of section

MH BROTHERS ,RAISEN vs. THE ITO , RAISEN

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

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

Section 249(2)/249(3). In this case, there is no explanation for the delay nor is there any request for condonation of such delay. In view of the above facts, the appeal is dismissed in limini.” 6. Thus, it is clear that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation and in absence

MH BROTHERS ,RAISEN vs. THE ITO , RAISEN

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

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

Section 249(2)/249(3). In this case, there is no explanation for the delay nor is there any request for condonation of such delay. In view of the above facts, the appeal is dismissed in limini.” 6. Thus, it is clear that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation and in absence

M/S KALINDI PLACE ,BHOPSL vs. ACIT CPC ,BANGLORE, BANGLORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

disallowing the claims. Even an opportunity should also have been given in respect of our interpretation, which may kindly be given on facts and in circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee is doing business of lodging and boarding. The assessee claimed unabsorbed depreciation Rs.8,06,960/- of earlier year

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

section 32(1) by making a sufficient note in assessment-order. Consequently, we uphold AO’s action. The assessee fails in this ground. Ground No. 23: 32. This ground relates to the cost of Rs. 73,10,920/- incurred by assessee towards licensed software treated by AO as capital expenditure. 33. The assessee has incurred cost towards purchase of licensed

ITO 2(1), UJJAIN vs. SHRI SANTOSH AGRAWAL PROP. M/S. SANTOSH ENTERPRISES, UJJAIN

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2010-11

disallowed in the proceeding under Section 143(3) of the Act. In support of his argument he has relied on the judicial pronouncements in the following matter ; 3 Santosh Agrawal (i) CIT V/s Kelvinator India Ltd 320 ITR 561 (ii) ITO V/s Techspan India (P) Ltd (2018) 404 ITR 10(SC) (iii) Asteroids Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd V/s DCIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

249 (Del.) in which it was held as under : Both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have returned a concurrent and clear finding of fact that the notice under s. 143(2) was issued on 23rd March, 2000 and since the return was filed on 27th March, 2000, the notice was not a valid one and, therefore, the assessment completed

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. AGROH TOLL HIGHWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiincome Tax Agroh Toll Highways Private बनाम/ Officer-1(1), Limited Vs. Indore Floor No.104, Krishna Harmony, 14/2 New Palasia, Indore, Indore (Pan:Aalca2341L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.03.2026 Date Of 27.03.2026 Pronouncement आदेश/ O R D E R

disallowed the deduction under section 801A merely on a ground that the audit report was furnished after due date by the appellant. 5.5 Further, the appellant has submitted that furnishing of the auditors' report along with the return be treated as a procedural provision, and the exemption shall not be denied merely on the ground that the audit report

JANTA NAGRIK SAHAKARI SAKH SAMITI MARYADIT DEWAS,DEWAS vs. AO DEWAS, BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2019-20 Janta Nagrik Sahakari Ao Sakh Samiti Maryadit, Dewas बनाम/ Dewas Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaatj8320Q Assessee By Shri Siddharth Mahajan, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act for the appellants failure to file the appeal within prescribed period of limitation u/s 249(2) of the Income Tax Act r.w.s 5 of the Limitation Act. Since, the delay in filing of appeal has not been condoned, consequently the appeal of the appellant becomes non-est and therefore the same