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

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

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

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowing entire deprecation claimed by appellant and secondly not justified in estimating NP @ 5%. Thus, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 2,04,60,184/- is Deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed.” 18. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the facts discussed above squarely establish that

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowing entire deprecation claimed by appellant and secondly not justified in estimating NP @ 5%. Thus, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 2,04,60,184/- is Deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed.” 18. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the facts discussed above squarely establish that

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowing entire deprecation claimed by appellant and secondly not justified in estimating NP @ 5%. Thus, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 2,04,60,184/- is Deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed.” 18. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the facts discussed above squarely establish that

M/S RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIK VISHWAVIDHALYA,HOSANGABAD vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 324 & 325/Ind/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vs. Dcit, Vishwavidyalaya, Cpc, Bhopal Bangaluru

33 M/s.Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya,Bhopal. contemplated under section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act, funds received from Government must be direct grants/contributions from governmental source and not fees collected from students under Statute. The Hon’ble Court has observed that the plain reading of the section implies that the phrase 'wholly and substantially financed by the Government' should only

M/S RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIK VISHWAVIDHALYA,HOSANGABAD vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 324 & 325/Ind/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vs. Dcit, Vishwavidyalaya, Cpc, Bhopal Bangaluru

33 M/s.Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya,Bhopal. contemplated under section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act, funds received from Government must be direct grants/contributions from governmental source and not fees collected from students under Statute. The Hon’ble Court has observed that the plain reading of the section implies that the phrase 'wholly and substantially financed by the Government' should only

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

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

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

SHRI SANJAY SHUKLA ,INDORE vs. ACIT,CENTRAL-CIRLE-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Sanjay Shukla, Acit Central Circle 2, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit Central Circle 2, Shri Sanjay Shukla, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03..2022 आदेश / O R D E R

disallowance as per section 14A of the Income Tax, 1961 read with rule 8D. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of 21,33

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY SHUKLA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Sanjay Shukla, Acit Central Circle 2, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit Central Circle 2, Shri Sanjay Shukla, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03..2022 आदेश / O R D E R

disallowance as per section 14A of the Income Tax, 1961 read with rule 8D. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of 21,33

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

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 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

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 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

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 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with