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

disallowance u/s 68 of the Act pertaining to accommodation entry received by the assessee through shell entities and has also paid commission to the intermediaries @ 1%. The ld. CIT-DR submitted that the AO made addition by considering the statement of Director of Mega Money Commodities Pvt. Ltd. (MMCPL) which was deleted by the ld.CIT(A) without any basis. Therefore

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

disallowance u/s 68 of the Act pertaining to accommodation entry received by the assessee through shell entities and has also paid commission to the intermediaries @ 1%. The ld. CIT-DR submitted that the AO made addition by considering the statement of Director of Mega Money Commodities Pvt. Ltd. (MMCPL) which was deleted by the ld.CIT(A) without any basis. Therefore

MALWA OXYGEN AND INDUSTRIAL GASES PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECTOR C, INDUSTRIAL AREA vs. AO-RATLAM/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, RATLAM/DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance under Section 35(2AB) was justified due to non-compliance with procedural requirements. However, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's alternative claim for 100% deduction of revenue expenses under Section 35(1)(i) and depreciation under Section 32

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) and disallowed deduction but allowed depreciation. In the Written-Submission filed initially by Ld. AR, on Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, NASHIK vs. MAHAKALESHWAR TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 123/Ind/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18)

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, he disallowed the claim of depreciation of Rs.4,05,75,163/- and allowed

SAIPHIA TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) , NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2015-16 Saiphia Technology Private Nfac Limited, Delhi 1St Floor Ankit Plaza, बनाम/ Kolar Road, Vs. Near Nayapura Bus Stop, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aancs1814Q Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2025

disallowance of Rs. 32,31,505/- is the outcome of non-acceptance of claim of additional depreciation made by assessee in terms of section

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

disallowed if they are made in cash in the sums exceeding the amount specified under section 40A(3). We have earlier observed that rule 6DD has to be read along with section 40A(3). The rule also contemplates payments made for stock-in-trade and raw materials. This rule is in accordance with the terms of section

D.K CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (3), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanid. K Construction Ito 2(3) E 2/21, Pandit Deeendayal Bhopal Complex, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaafd7121P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit- Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09 .09.2024

disallowing the claim for deduction under Section 801B (10) (a) of the Act, inspite of a finding of fact by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Ultimate fact finding Authority, that the Completion Certificate dated 24.12.2010 filed by the Petitioner clearly mentions that the project was completed in March, 2008? 4.1 As it is clear from the finding

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)

disallowing freight expenses amounting to Rs. 1,52,32,690/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of Income-tax Act, 1961, for non-deduction of TDS on freight expenses by assessee, ignoring that: a) The assessee was liable to deduct TDS on such expenses and has failed to do so ? b) Without prejudice to the above, additional evidence was admitted without giving

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)

disallowing freight expenses amounting to Rs. 1,52,32,690/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of Income-tax Act, 1961, for non-deduction of TDS on freight expenses by assessee, ignoring that: a) The assessee was liable to deduct TDS on such expenses and has failed to do so ? b) Without prejudice to the above, additional evidence was admitted without giving

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

disallowance of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act without appreciating the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act? 5. Whether

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

disallowance of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act without appreciating the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act? 5. Whether

M/S SANGHVI FOODS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DIT /CPC , BENGELURU

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 37 of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,43,561/- which was disallowed in computation of return of the assessee for A.Y. 2018-19 and disallowance of Rs. 32

RAISEN MARKETING P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ADIT CPC , BGHOPAL

In the result, the present appeal is allowed in so far as it relates\nto adjudication of Ground No

disallowed u/s 14A (16\nof Part A-OI)\n8b\n0\n9.\nTotal (7a + 7b +7c+ 7d+ 7e + 8a+ 8b)\n9\n0\n10. Adjusted profit or loss (6+9)\n10\n51829125\n11. Depreciation and amoritisation debited to profit and loss account\n11\n4563142\n12. Depreciation allowable under Income-tax Act\ni\nDepreciation allowable under section 32

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

section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by making cash payment in excess of Rs. 20,000/-. (b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that the seller Shri Jineshwar Lallulalji Jain was well known to the assessee and the seller was maintaining regular bank account. (c) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the decision

SAHARAYN UNIVERSAL MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

32,01,392/- (+) payments to contractors of Rs.11,50,000/- (+) payment of office rent of Rs.3,84,00,000/-]. Considering assessee's\nsubmission, the AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) vide order dated\n30.12.2019 after making a disallowance of Rs.1,11,68,25,418/- u/s\n40(a)(ia). After completion of assessment, the assessee carried matter in\nfirst-appeal before

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 269SS & 269T. He further found that in the Balance-Sheet of M/s Jayant (the same person from whom the assessee has taken unsecured loans and we have held M/s Jayant as genuine lender in earlier paragraph), the name of WCS was appearing in the list of “Loans & Advances” with an amount of Rs. 32,43,791/-. Based on this

RNG CONSTRUCTION CO.,INDIRA NAGAR vs. DCIT, DCIT-CPC

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshirng Construction Co. Dcit 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 considering the amendment in section 145A. However, the Hon'ble High Court Chhattisgarh decided the issue as under - "12. Reverting to the facts of the case, it is admitted position on record that the appellant /assessee did not claim the amount of 62,32