M/S BEYOND KEY SYSTEMS P LTD,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1(1) , INDORE

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Beyond Key Systems Dcit/Acit-Circle,1(1) Private Ltd. Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaccb 7622 G Assessee By Shri Manish Dafaria, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.01.2023

section 40A(7). Simultaneously, the pre-existing scrutiny- proceeding initiated on 22.09.2019 was also continuing wherein the Ld. AO issued a query letter u/s 142(1) dated 29.10.2020 [Paper-Book Page No. 53 & 54] to examine the disallowance u/s 40A(7). In response, the assessee filed a detailed reply dated 11.11.2020 [Paper-Book Page No. 55 to 57] wherein

M/S KOHINOOR ELASTICS P LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

260/- which is bad in law and excessive. 3. The assessee company filed its return declaring total income at Rs. 8,63,43,150/-. The CPC, Bangalore processed this return and made addition of Rs. 43,00,281 under Section 36(1)(va) on account of delay in payment of employees’ contribution of provident fund / ESI. The addition

IMRAN KHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO2 (2), BHYOPAL

In the result the issue No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradimran Khan Ito 2(2) S/O Sh. Gulab Khan H. No.35 Bhopal Village-Inayatpura Kolar Board, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ckqpk5708M Assessee By Shri Niranjan Purandar Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.01.2024

disallowed the deduction on the ground that the land is in the name of the son of the assessee, so the deduction cannot be allowed, specially when the land was purchased by Sh. Gurnam Singh out of the sale proceeds of agricultural land and since Palwinder Singh was bachelor and was not having any independent source of income was dependent

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

260 ITR 366 (Guj)]. Section 11(4) is merely intended to tax income which is not accounted for in the books: it does not operate to charge a disclosed amount which is admittedly expended, for a purpose either charitable or non- charitable, but is disclos as business expenditure and consequently added back in computing the business income. [CIT v Birla

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

260 ITR 366 (Guj)]. Section 11(4) is merely intended to tax income which is not accounted for in the books: it does not operate to charge a disclosed amount which is admittedly expended, for a purpose either charitable or non- charitable, but is disclos as business expenditure and consequently added back in computing the business income. [CIT v Birla

ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S RUCHI J OIL PVT. LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

260/-. Case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS followed by serving of statutory notices. During the course of assessment proceedings Ld. AO observed that the assessee has entered into a transaction of acquisition of an undertaking by way of slump sale from its sister concern M/s Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. for a consideration

DCIT,CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI KRIHNA KUMAR VERMA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI (Accountant Member)

260/- including additional income of Rs.4,53,43,587/- voluntary declared during the course of search and survey. However, as per AO, the details and evidences furnished by the assessee are nothing but an afterthought and therefore, subsequent addition was made in the income of the appellant by applying tax rate as per amended provisions of section 115BBE

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowances ouf of various expenses claimed by the appellant whereas the remaining addition of Rs.8,83,283/- was made by invoking the provisions of S.14A of the Act. The AO while passing the assessment order also initiated penalty proceedings under S.271AAA of the Act. A copy of the assessment order has already been furnished by the appellant along with

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

ASHOK KUMAR MOONAT,RATLAM vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-3), INDORE, INDORE

disallowance made by the\nAO u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE is unlawful. Further, the amended provisions\nof section 115BBE are applicable from 01.04.2017 and not from the\ndate of search.\n4.1.2 I have considered the entire matrix of the case, various case law\ncited by the appellant and also perused assessment order. It is\nundisputed fact that during the course

RAMANLAL PIRODIA,RATLAM vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-3, AAYKAR BHAWAN

disallowance made by the\nAO u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE is unlawful. Further, the amended provisions\nof section 115BBE are applicable from 01.04.2017 and not from the\ndate of search.\n4.1.2 I have considered the entire matrix of the case, various case law\ncited by the appellant and also perused assessment order. It is\nundisputed fact that during the course

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHOPAL vs. VINDHYACHAL BROTHERS, OBAIDULLAGANJ

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2018-19 Acit Vindhyachal Brothers, Bhopal Patwari Halka No.10, बनाम/ Hoshangabad Road, Vs. Obaidullaganj (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aahfv2315A Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assesseeby Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ar Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025

section 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961. The same amount is added to the returned income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC is initiated against the assessee for such default [Addition Rs. 1,08,07,260/-]” [emphasis supplied] 5. Now, we re-produce the order of first appeal passed by CIT(A) deleting the addition made by AO and giving relief

RNG CONSTRUCTION CO,INDRA NAGAR vs. DCIT-CPC, CPC-BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshirng Construction Co. Dcit-Cpc बनाम/ 14, Sector-A, Vs. Indira Nagar, Mandideep (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqfr9084B Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025

disallowance on account of Service Tax is required to be confirmed, the same should be allowed in subsequent years being Rs. 5,97,097/- in AY 2019-20 and Rs. 60,42,613/- in Page 3 of 9 RNG Construction Co. ITA No.162/Ind/2024- AY:2018-19 AY 2021-22 on the basis of payments, as these were never claimed

DEEPAK PAREKH,USA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

section 199 talks of granting credit for tax deducted at source to the other person, who is lawfully taxable in respect of such income, we are satisfied that the matching credit for tax deducted at source must also be allowed to him.\"\n9. Following the same analogy in this case merely because the assessee's wife did not furnish declaration

SMT. PADMA KALANI,INDORE vs. ITO 3(1), INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

disallowance considering the amount of interest paid to the bank. Secondly the point to be considered is that interest @18% was charged from the amount advanced to Kalani Industries. It therefore is beyond doubt that the assessee was prudently carrying on her business. That the learned AO ignored the fact that the amount advance to P.S. Kalani should have been

SMT. PADMA KALANI,INDORE vs. ITO-1(3), INDORE, INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

disallowance considering the amount of interest paid to the bank. Secondly the point to be considered is that interest @18% was charged from the amount advanced to Kalani Industries. It therefore is beyond doubt that the assessee was prudently carrying on her business. That the learned AO ignored the fact that the amount advance to P.S. Kalani should have been

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

disallowances made by the learned A.O. be held to be high, exorbitant and unreasonable and be suitably reduced. Ground-8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any Ground of Appeal before or during the course of appellate proceedings.” 9. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal