M/S DAULATARAM ENGINEERING SERVICES P.LTD,MANDIDEEP vs. THE ADIT/CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

disallowing an adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) read with section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act in respect

SHRI ARUN KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA,INDORE vs. ASSTT, DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Shri Arun Kumar Adit, Cpc, Shrivastava, Bangalore 9, Shakti Nagar, Vs. Kanadia Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aopps 9595 H Assessee By Shri Soumya Bomb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

36(1)(va) of the Act cannot be disallowed u/s 143(1) of the Act (more specifically under sub- clause (d) to 143(1) of the Act). Secondly, the counsel argued that the issue at the time when the disallowance was made, issue was debatable and accordingly could not be the subject matter of disallowance under section

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

disallowance by holding that the payments made after due dates under PF law, were not allowable as deduction u/s 36(1)(va). In first appeal, the CIT(A) reversed AO’s action by following certain ruling of ITAT and High Court wherein it was held that section

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

disallowance by holding that the payments made after due dates under PF law, were not allowable as deduction u/s 36(1)(va). In first appeal, the CIT(A) reversed AO’s action by following certain ruling of ITAT and High Court wherein it was held that section

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

disallowance by holding that the payments made after due dates under PF law, were not allowable as deduction u/s 36(1)(va). In first appeal, the CIT(A) reversed AO’s action by following certain ruling of ITAT and High Court wherein it was held that section

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

disallowance by holding that the payments made after due dates under PF law, were not allowable as deduction u/s 36(1)(va). In first appeal, the CIT(A) reversed AO’s action by following certain ruling of ITAT and High Court wherein it was held that section

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

disallowance by holding that the payments made after due dates under PF law, were not allowable as deduction u/s 36(1)(va). In first appeal, the CIT(A) reversed AO’s action by following certain ruling of ITAT and High Court wherein it was held that section

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

disallowance by holding that the payments made after due dates under PF law, were not allowable as deduction u/s 36(1)(va). In first appeal, the CIT(A) reversed AO’s action by following certain ruling of ITAT and High Court wherein it was held that section

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

disallowance by holding that the payments made after due dates under PF law, were not allowable as deduction u/s 36(1)(va). In first appeal, the CIT(A) reversed AO’s action by following certain ruling of ITAT and High Court wherein it was held that section

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

disallowance by holding that the payments made after due dates under PF law, were not allowable as deduction u/s 36(1)(va). In first appeal, the CIT(A) reversed AO’s action by following certain ruling of ITAT and High Court wherein it was held that section

JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MYDT,SEHORE, MP vs. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi / Bank Mydt, Acit-3(1), Bhopal बनाम/ Sehore, M.P. Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaalj0022F Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026

section 36(1)(viia) and framed a view that “Provision for NPA” is a provision for bad-debt and therefore allowable as deduction; but “Provision for standard assets” is not a provision for bad-debt and therefore not allowable. Finally, Ld. AO disallowed

M/S JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,MANDSAUR vs. THE DCIT, RATLAM

In the result Ground No.1 & 2 raised by the

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Dcit, Ratlam Bank Maryadit, Vs. Mhow-Neemuch Road, Mandsaur (M.P) (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaatj2383F Revenue By Shri Lalchand, Cit Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande,Ca Date Of Hearing 25.7.2018 Date Of 17.8.2018 Pronouncement

sections i.e. 36(1)(viia) and 36(1)(viii) of the Act are different and cannot be equated to each other. 11. Now coming to the issue raised in the instant appeal we find that the Ld.CIT(A) has sustained the disallowance

ACIT, KHANDWA vs. M/S JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK, , KHARGONE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit M/S. Jila Sahakari Khandwa Kendriya Bank, बनाम/ Khandwa Raod, Khargone Vs. M.P. (Appellant /Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaatj 0529 K Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain & Milind Wadhwani, Ars Date Of Hearing 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023

section 36(1)(viia) allows deduction upto a certain limit, the first limb of which is “7.50% of the eligible income”, the AO made a mathematical working of such 7.50% limit at Rs. 1,46,29,871/-; allowed deduction to that extent; and disallowed

THE ADIT CPC , BENGALURU vs. SUNDERLAL MOOLCHAND JAIN, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S Sunderlal Moolchand Adit, Cpc, Jain Tobacconist Private Bangalore Limited, Vs. 31, Kacchi Mohalla, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaecs 7779 P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

36(1)(va) of the Act cannot be disallowed u/s 143(1) of the Act (more specifically under sub- clause (d) to 143(1) of the Act). Secondly, the counsel argued that the issue at the time when the disallowance was made, issue was debatable and accordingly could not be the subject matter of disallowance under section

M/S VIJAY PULSES,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 4(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S. Vijay Pulses, Dcit, Cpc, 12, Sajan Nagar, Bangalore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaafv 9714 E Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

36(1)(va) of the Act cannot be disallowed u/s 143(1) of the Act (more specifically under sub- clause (d) to 143(1) of the Act). Secondly, the counsel argued that the issue at the time when the disallowance was made, issue was debatable and accordingly could not be the subject matter of disallowance under section

KWALITY MOTEL SHIRAZ,BHOPAL vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEBER, SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTNT MEMBER Kwality Motel Shiraz 1, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal-462021

36(1)(va) of the Act cannot be disallowed u/s 143(1) of the Act (more specifically under sub-clause (d) to 143(1) of the Act). Secondly, the counsel argued that the issue at the time when the disallowance was made, issue was debatable and accordingly could not be the subject matter of disallowance under section

ANIL PRAKASH TYAGI,JABAPUR vs. ADIT,CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of The Income Tax Return & Can It Be Disallowed In The Intimation Passed U/S. 143(1) Intimation.

36(1)(va) of the Act cannot be disallowed u/s 143(1) of the Act (more specifically under sub-clause (d) to 143(1) of the Act). Secondly, the counsel argued that the issue at the time when the disallowance was made, issue was debatable and accordingly could not be the subject matter of disallowance under section

PRASHANTI ENGINEERING WORKS P LTD,PITHAMPUR vs. THE ASST.DCIT ,CPC, BANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Under Section 139(1).

36(1)(va) of the Act cannot be disallowed u/s 143(1) of the Act (more specifically under sub-clause (d) to 143(1) of the Act). Secondly, the counsel argued that the issue at the time when the disallowance was made, issue was debatable and accordingly could not be the subject matter of disallowance under section