THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

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)

Disallowance of freight expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) 2013-14 3 2014-15 2 2016-17 4 2017-18 5 2018-19 7 7 Unexplained investment in construction of house 2016-17 3 u/s 69 2017-18 3 2018-19 3 8 Unexplained investment in furniture & fixture 2017-18 4 2018-19 4 9 Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 related

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)

Disallowance of freight expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) 2013-14 3 2014-15 2 2016-17 4 2017-18 5 2018-19 7 7 Unexplained investment in construction of house 2016-17 3 u/s 69 2017-18 3 2018-19 3 8 Unexplained investment in furniture & fixture 2017-18 4 2018-19 4 9 Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 related

RADHIKA DEVCON PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. ITO-4(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Amember & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2015-16

4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee made two-fold contention against the disallowance; Radhika Devcon Private Limited vs. ITO-4(1) Page 5 of 5  one was reiteration of the argument made before the lower authorities that transaction was genuine transaction, therefore, would not attract any disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act. In this regard

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAR vs. JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, JHABUA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2015-16 Ito, Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Dhar Maryadit, बनाम/ Jhabua Vs. (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aacfj4887C Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal & Shri Harsh Choukse, Ar Revenue By Shri Anup Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 26.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2026

4,00,00,000/- u/s 36(1)(viia) on account of provision for bad and doubt debts. Out of this, the AO allowed deduction to the extent of Rs. 66,10,745/- (7.50% of gross total income) and disallowed remaining amount of Rs. 3,33,89,255/-. (b) The AO disallowed deduction of Rs. 81,02,617/- claimed by assessee

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

4. In appeals for both the assessment years, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] held that Section 145A(a)(ii) of the Act would apply as it is not restricted only to manufacturing and trading companies. It was concluded that the service tax stands on the same footing as excise duties, sales tax and other taxes, which

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. LIFE STYLE INFRATECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

disallowed by AO but re-allowed by CIT(A). 13. Referring to the orders of lower-authorities, Ld. DR made following contentions: (i) The assessee did not satisfy the conditions laid down in section 80- IB(10) for allowability of deduction which is very much clear from following defaults made by assessee: (a) First condition of section

THE ACIT, - 4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. YASH TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15 Pan : Aaacy1868M

4. Through Ground No.1 revenue has challenged the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of treating gain from foreign exchange fluctuation as income from other sources at Rs.1,52,82,274/-. Brief facts relating to this issue are that during the course of assessment proceedings Ld. A.O observed that there was a net gain of foreign currency

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S AGRAWAL CONSTRUCTION CO., BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

4) No person shall occupy or permit to be occupied any such building or use or permit to be used any part affected by the re-erection of such building – (a) Until the permission referred to in clause (a) of sub- section (3) has been granted in the manner prescribed by byelaws; (b) Unless the Commissioner has failed for fifteen

M/S AGARWAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,BHOPAL vs. DYPTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

4) No person shall occupy or permit to be occupied any such building or use or permit to be used any part affected by the re-erection of such building – (a) Until the permission referred to in clause (a) of sub- section (3) has been granted in the manner prescribed by byelaws; (b) Unless the Commissioner has failed for fifteen

ANIL KUMAR GUPTA,BHOPAL vs. ITO, 4(3), BHOPAL, OFFICE OF ITO BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

disallowed extra interest of Rs.15,08,951/-.\n13.\nDuring first-appeal, the CIT(A) upheld AO's order.\n14.\nBefore us, Ld. AR for assessee made following submissions in Written-\nSynopsis:\n“1. At the outset it is submitted that the total land area was 4500 sq ft. (PB\n101), Ld. AO erroneously based on a total area

ACIT (CENTRAL)-1 INDORE, INDORE vs. ESSENCE COMMODITIES (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result all the appeals of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

255 (Del.) On factual analysis of the assessee's case, the Tribunal observed and held:- "4. We have heard both the side and perused the materials available on record. The Id. AR submitted two papers books. First book is running in pages no. 1 to 88 and 2nd paper book is running in pages 1 to 34. Before

ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S ESSENCE COMMODITIES P LTD, INDORE

In the result all the appeals of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

255 (Del.) On factual analysis of the assessee's case, the Tribunal observed and held:- "4. We have heard both the side and perused the materials available on record. The Id. AR submitted two papers books. First book is running in pages no. 1 to 88 and 2nd paper book is running in pages 1 to 34. Before

M/S INDORE PARASPAR SAHKARI BANK LTD. ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2 (5) , INDORE

In the result this common issue is decided in favour of the assessee and the relevant grounds raised in Assessment Year 2008-09 to Assessment Year 2012-13 in I

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

disallowance of depreciation but failed to get any relief. 6. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. We will first take up Ground No.1 of assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 challenging the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment has been reopened beyond

M/S. INDORE PARASPAR SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-I(I), INDORE

In the result this common issue is decided in favour of the assessee and the relevant grounds raised in Assessment Year 2008-09 to Assessment Year 2012-13 in I

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

disallowance of depreciation but failed to get any relief. 6. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. We will first take up Ground No.1 of assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 challenging the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment has been reopened beyond

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

disallowance of interest on the unsecured loans, the assessee submitted that such interest was claimed by the assessee on the various unsecured loans taken by it from the aforesaid companies, and for which the AO has invoked the provisions of section 68 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the loans from the subject companies were genuinely

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

disallowance of interest on the unsecured loans, the assessee submitted that such interest was claimed by the assessee on the various unsecured loans taken by it from the aforesaid companies, and for which the AO has invoked the provisions of section 68 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the loans from the subject companies were genuinely

STUTI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,NAGDA vs. ITO 2(2), UJJAIN

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

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshistuti Construction Pvt. Ito 2(2), बनाम/ Ltd, Ujjain Vs. 53 Government Colony, Birla Gram, Nagda (Pan: Aahcs3932R) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

255 dated 14-08-2014. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds, the order passed by Hon. CI T(A) may please be set aside as the Hon CIT (A) erred in passing order leaving unsettled issues raised through Grounds of Appeal, their reason(s) for allowing/rejecting