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

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 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

270 ITR 314 (MP) wherein it is observed that when profit rate is applied and income of the Appellant is estimated form business, no separate disallowance is called for under Section

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

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 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

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

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

270/- after making disallowance of deduction of Rs. 81,02,617/- claimed by assessee u/s 80P. (ii) Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT, Ujjain passed revision-order dated 23.03.2020 u/s 263 terming the assessment-order passed by AO as erroneous-cum-prejudicial to the interest of revenue for certain issue(s). The Ld. PCIT set aside assessment-order and directed

M/S. CHHAGANLAL KISHANLAL & CO.,BURHANPUR vs. THE ACIT, KHANDWA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

270 3.Sudha Garg 93,806 Not 93,806 charged 4.Sweta(loan 5 lac for 1- 8,625 Not 8,625 1/2 month) charged Total interest disallowed 1,98,291 1.1.1. In view of above, the AO disallowed the interest of Rs. 1,98,291/- by observing that the assessee has diverted interest bearing funds for advancing the same without interest

THE DCIT, 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. MODERN LABORATORIES, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ ./ ./ I.T.A. No.277 & Co.16/Ind/2014 ./ "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09

section 133(6) to all commission agents and all of them have confirmed rendering services and receiving commission. The AO disallowed commission payment on the reasons that in some cases bills are of different dates and rate of commission of 2.24% to MPLUN whereas rate of commission to others is at higher rate. However, the AO failed to appreciate that

GENDALAL JADHAV,INDORE vs. ITO-1(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanigendalal Jadhav, Ito 1(1) 168-G Palakhedi, Gandhi Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Nagar Indore Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aphpj4675K Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh, Ar Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2024 O R D E R

sections and the interpretation has to be made liberally.” 2. Ground no.1 is general in nature depending on outcome of specific issues raised by the assessee in ground no.2 & 3. 3. Ground no.2 is regarding disallowance of the claim of deduction on account of brokerage charges while computing the capital gain arising from the sale of agricultural land. During

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 (1), INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. (M.P), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the revenue stands

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14 Dcit-2(1), M/S. Dthri Health Care Indore Vs. Pvt. Ltd (M.P), Pu-4, Scheme No.54, Near A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aabcd4095N Revenue By Shri R.P. Mourya, Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri Sumit Neema, Sr.Adv & Gagan Tiwari, Adv Date Of Hearing 17.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2019 O R D E R

disallowance of set off of above expenses in view of section 115BBE of act and ignoring the findings in assessment order. 3. Thaqt the appellant craves right to add, delete and alter any of the grounds”. 3. Briefly stated the facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee filed his return of income for Assessment Year

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

disallowance of excess interest u/s 57 d. Details of amounts appearing in 26AS Statement 4. Further the A.O had - in its show cause notice dt./ 18/03/2015 also mentioned interest amount of Rs. 3479097/- in addition to Rs.7.00 Crores surrendered during the Survey. From all the above it is clear that the A.D had obtained the details of all the heads

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

disallowance of excess interest u/s 57 d. Details of amounts appearing in 26AS Statement 4. Further the A.O had - in its show cause notice dt./ 18/03/2015 also mentioned interest amount of Rs. 3479097/- in addition to Rs.7.00 Crores surrendered during the Survey. From all the above it is clear that the A.D had obtained the details of all the heads

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

disallowance of excess interest u/s 57 d. Details of amounts appearing in 26AS Statement 4. Further the A.O had - in its show cause notice dt./ 18/03/2015 also mentioned interest amount of Rs. 3479097/- in addition to Rs.7.00 Crores surrendered during the Survey. From all the above it is clear that the A.D had obtained the details of all the heads

M/S. DEVI SHAKUNTALA THKARAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Devi Shakuntala Dcit Thakral Charitable (Exemption) बनाम/ Foundation Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaatd2943B

270 ITR 157 – “Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Revision – Of orders prejudicial to interest of revenue - Commissioner invoked provision of section 263 against assessment order passed in case of assessee-firm on ground that Assessing Officer did not make proper enquiry regarding genuineness of certain cash credits found in books of firm – However, Tribunal held that since

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

disallowance for interest paid on Income Tax at Rs.15,82,154/- and assessed loss at Rs.2,40,10,826/-. Subsequently Ld. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act perused the records and observed that the order passed by Ld. A.O u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 30.3.2015 is erroneous and prejudicial

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

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. DR. SHRI RAJEEV CHAUDHARY, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Pan : Abkpc5729K Assistant Commissioner Of V/S Dr.Rajeev Choudhary Income Tax, 1, Shiv Vilas Palace Circle-2(1), Indore Indore

section 143(3) of IT, Act, 1961 at Rs.3,17,71,700/- 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded as Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at Rs.2,15,542/- and allowed the assessee’s claim of profit from purchase and sale of equity shares held for less