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

section 43(1). During current AY 2012-13 under consideration, Ld. AO followed his predecessor’s approach of AY 2007-08 and accordingly disallowed entire depreciation of Rs. 3,89,37

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

section 43(1). During current AY 2012-13 under consideration, Ld. AO followed his predecessor’s approach of AY 2007-08 and accordingly disallowed entire depreciation of Rs. 3,89,37

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

section 43(1). During current AY 2012-13 under consideration, Ld. AO followed his predecessor’s approach of AY 2007-08 and accordingly disallowed entire depreciation of Rs. 3,89,37

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

section 43(1). During current AY 2012-13 under consideration, Ld. AO followed his predecessor’s approach of AY 2007-08 and accordingly disallowed entire depreciation of Rs. 3,89,37

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

section 43(1). During current AY 2012-13 under consideration, Ld. AO followed his predecessor’s approach of AY 2007-08 and accordingly disallowed entire depreciation of Rs. 3,89,37

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

section 43(1). During current AY 2012-13 under consideration, Ld. AO followed his predecessor’s approach of AY 2007-08 and accordingly disallowed entire depreciation of Rs. 3,89,37

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

37,13,460/- inclusive of taxable capital gain of Rs. 27,85,291/- from sale of an immovable property. The AO processed assessee’s return u/s 143(1) after assessing total income at Rs. 70,93,460/- inclusive of taxable capital gain of Rs. 61,65,291/-. In effect, the AO made an addition/upward adjustment

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 37(1) as concluded by CIT(A), there is neither disallowance in assessment-order nor in first appeal. Therefore

MILLION TRADERS BHOPAL P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

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

section 206C(4) and submitted that the term “behalf of whom the amount is collected and paid to the Government” means that the credit be allowed to the person who has actually carried out transaction the on which tax was collected at source. Further Ld. Sr. counsel has pointed out that since the disallowance is made by the CPC while

MILLION TRADERS BHOPAL P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

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

section 206C(4) and submitted that the term “behalf of whom the amount is collected and paid to the Government” means that the credit be allowed to the person who has actually carried out transaction the on which tax was collected at source. Further Ld. Sr. counsel has pointed out that since the disallowance is made by the CPC while

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

37(1); and (iii) disallowance of Rs. 50,500/- u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act on account of employees’ contribution towards ESI deposited beyond the due date prescribed under ESI Act, 1948. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal Page 2 of 18 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Mydt, Sehore ITA No. 407/Ind/2024 – AY 2014-15 before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

section 37(1) of the Act and hence disallowable. b) In para 14 above, it has been established that the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

section 37(1) of the Act and hence disallowable. b) In para 14 above, it has been established that the assessee

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1,23,37,620 Total 13,76,16,848 11. That, in pursuance of the return of income filed by me, as aforesaid, an assessment under s. 143(3) of the Act has been framed by the predecessor in office of your good self on 29-12-2009 determining my taxable income at Rs.40,15,16,900/- as against

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

disallowance made at Rs.2048173/- therefore, be kindly deleted. 4. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned lower authorities wholly wrong and opposed to fact that the society had paid Rs.561877 to Vijay Ramani who is the member of the society and therefore, there is violation of section 13(1

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

disallowance made at Rs.2048173/- therefore, be kindly deleted. 4. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned lower authorities wholly wrong and opposed to fact that the society had paid Rs.561877 to Vijay Ramani who is the member of the society and therefore, there is violation of section 13(1

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 of\ndeduction under section 35(2AB) be directed to be deleted.\n3. Without prejudice to Ground 1 above and on the facts and circumstances\nof the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the normal\ndeduction of such expenses under section 35(1) and 37

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. MARAL OVERSEAS LTD, KHARGONE

In the result appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-4(1), Indore Maral Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Maral Sarovar, V& Po Vs. Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal

section 36, or, as required by or under any other law for the time being is force", The contribution of Rs. 1,45,87,125/- was not made by the assessee in approved gratuity found, it is being disallowed and an amount of Rs. 1,45,87,125/-is added back to the taxable income of the assessee.” Page