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

33,62,482/-) by overlooking the glaring evidences/findings of synchronized trades executed by the assessee with a cluster of brokers/ counterparties on NMCE exchange which had resulted in excessive losses which were then set-off against profits from other exchanges. Further, the ld. CIT-DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has also erred in ignoring that execution of trades

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance of Rs.\n1,80,53,33,154/- proposed by assessee. Here, the assessee's grievance is\nsuch that the AO has not given the benefit of payments made below the\nthreshold limit of section

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 2(1) , INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

33 and PCIT vs.IL & FS, 399 ITR 483. 23. The Ld. DR submitted that for earning investment of Rs.18,65,61,000/- the assessee has suo moto disallowed such amount of Rs.20,37,506/-. In fact, the current investments were Rs.14,11,59,91,000/- and for such exorbitant investment the assesses has not invoked the disallowance under 14A read

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

33 and PCIT vs.IL & FS, 399 ITR 483. 23. The Ld. DR submitted that for earning investment of Rs.18,65,61,000/- the assessee has suo moto disallowed such amount of Rs.20,37,506/-. In fact, the current investments were Rs.14,11,59,91,000/- and for such exorbitant investment the assesses has not invoked the disallowance under 14A read

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT-CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

33 and PCIT vs.IL & FS, 399 ITR 483. 23. The Ld. DR submitted that for earning investment of Rs.18,65,61,000/- the assessee has suo moto disallowed such amount of Rs.20,37,506/-. In fact, the current investments were Rs.14,11,59,91,000/- and for such exorbitant investment the assesses has not invoked the disallowance under 14A read

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

section 40A(3) of the Act. 33. In case of Anupam Tele Services v. Income Tax Officer, the matter which came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, the facts of the case were that the assessee who is involved in the business of distribution mobile and recharge vouchers of Tata Tele Services Ltd had made payment

DXC TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT LTD,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

disallowances,\nthe Assessee \"submitted that they have not incurred any expenditure for\nearning the dividend income.\" Thereafter, in para 3.3, the AO records “I have\nconsidered the submissions of the Assessee and found not to be acceptable.”\nThereafter, the AO proceeded to deal with the said provisions of Section 14A\nand Rule 8D and observed, in para 3.3.1, that making

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

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

Appeal is dismissed

33,154/- being 30% of Cooperative\nEducator Expenses in respect of which TDS was not deposited in\nearlier year but was deposited during the Assessment Year 2017-18\nand, therefore, the same were fully allowable under section 40(a)(ia) of\nthe Income-tax Act, 1961.\n7. That in any view of the matter, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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 40A(3) of the I. T. Act.” 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case- records perused. 3. Brief facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee- individual submitted his return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 17,29,650/- which was subjected to scrutiny assessment u/s 143(2). Finally

SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL,VIDISHA vs. ITO, VIDISHA, VIDISHA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2019-20 Subhash Chandra Ito, Agrawal, Vidisha बनाम/ Galla Mandi, Vs. Vidisha (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afrpa8769A Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri Jaideep Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2026

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.--Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; Page 4 of 10 Subhash Chandra Agrawal ITA No. 354/Ind/2025 – AY 2019-20 (vi) addition

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

33,89,255/-. (b) The AO disallowed deduction of Rs. 81,02,617/- claimed by assessee u/s 80P. Page 2 of 5 Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit ITA No. 479/Ind/2024 – AY 2015-16 (iv) Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal whereupon the CIT(A) granted part-relief in the matter of disallowance u/s 36(1)(viia) and partly

M/S JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-II, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Jayganga Exim India Pvt. Dy. Cit, Limited Central-Ii, [Formerly Known As ‘Jay Jyoti Bhopal (India) Pvt. Ltd.’] बनाम/ 26, Col. Biswas Road, Ground Floor, Vs. West Side Flat, Kolkata (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacj 8822 E Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

disallowance of Rs. 4,33,05,189/- on account of various expenses claimed by the assessee company u/s 37, is beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, unjustified, against the principles of natural justice, void ab initio and barred by limitation also. (ix) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred

M/S RANA & JOSHI BUILDTECH P LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pr. Cit-1 Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (Formerly Known As M/S Rana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) Vs. 218 Civil Lines, Below Dainik Bhaskar Office Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcr9858P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .09.2024

section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and directing the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment de novo after examining the issue related to disallowance of Rs. 65,33

HARDA NAGAR BAL VIKAS SAMITI HARDA ,SARSWATI SHISHU MANDIR vs. ITO-1, HARDA, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms mentioned above

33,500/- and Rs.3,705/- in assessment-order. These disallowances are acceptable to assessee.\n(iii) The AO has invoked taxing section

SRK DEV BUILD PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

33,182/- cannot be considered as incidental to the business of the assessee. Therefore, cannot be allowed as business expenses. In view of the above there is no change of opinion. 3.4 In the case of Sambhav Media Limited, the assessee has claimed double deduction of depreciation on business asset while in this case the assessee has not used

CENTRAL INDIA ACADEMY ,DEWAS vs. THE4 PCIT-1,INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Central India Academy, Pcit-1, 1, Bhopal Road, Indore बनाम/ Jetpura, Vs. Dewas (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaaac4091Q Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Negi, Adv. & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14.03.2024

section 33 of Indian Stamps Act, 1899, every public officer is required to impound any instrument produced before him which is Page 2 of 11 Central India Academy, Dewas vs. PCIT-1, Indore. ITA No.162/Ind/2023 – AY 2018-19 not duly stamped. The PCIT then noted that the AO has, despite such provisions of Indian Registration Act read with Indian Stamps