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

disallowance is called for by invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. " 4. We apply the propositions

ADIM JATI SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI MYDT JOBAT,ALIRAJPUR vs. FACELESS ASSESSMENT OFFICER, ALIRAJPUR

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti National Faceless बनाम/ Mydt., Assessment Centre Vs. 01, Jobat, Jobat, Delhi Alirajpur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaala0577E Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in business of providing credit facilities to its members. For AY 2020-21, the assessee filed return declaring total income of Rs. 40/-. In the return

RADHIKA DEVCON PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. ITO-4(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Amember & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2015-16

4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee made two-fold contention against the disallowance; Radhika Devcon Private Limited vs. ITO-4(1) Page 5 of 5  one was reiteration of the argument made before the lower authorities that transaction was genuine transaction, therefore, would not attract any disallowance under Section 40A(3

ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. HARIOM PROPERTIES, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

section 69 and\nmade addition.\n6. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) reversed AO's action and deleted\naddition precisely accepting these reasons submitted by assessee:\n(i) All loans were taken through banking channel and the entries in Bank\nStatement were corroborated by Ledger A/cs of lenders. The assessee\nfiled A/c Confirmations of 11 lenders from whom impugned loans

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO -1 (5), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Essargee Construction Ito 1(5) Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Vs. A-10, Mezenine Floor Essarjee House Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaace 8852F Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.08.2023

section 40(A)(3) of the Act. The AO accordingly made disallowance of the payment made by the assesse to ten parties included the electricity expenses and vehicle repair expenses. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance made by the AO on account of electricity expenses but confirmed the other disallowance made by the AO. 4

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

3 of the assessee for AY 2008-09 are allowed. 11. Next grounds i.e. Ground No.4 & 5 raised in AY 2008-09 is against the deletion of addition made on the basis of loose papers found at the premises of Shri Manjit Singh Rajpal. These two grounds read as under: “4. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

3 of the assessee for AY 2008-09 are allowed. 11. Next grounds i.e. Ground No.4 & 5 raised in AY 2008-09 is against the deletion of addition made on the basis of loose papers found at the premises of Shri Manjit Singh Rajpal. These two grounds read as under: “4. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

3 of the assessee for AY 2008-09 are allowed. 11. Next grounds i.e. Ground No.4 & 5 raised in AY 2008-09 is against the deletion of addition made on the basis of loose papers found at the premises of Shri Manjit Singh Rajpal. These two grounds read as under: “4. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances

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

4) of section 254 attaches finality to, the orders of the Tribunal subject to the provisions of section 256 ( or section 260A). Needless to say the orders passed by the Tribunal are binding on all the Revenue authorities functioning under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.” 5.13 The Hon'ble M.P. High Court had also categorically stated that “obviously

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). Therefore, we are of the view that the disallowance u/s 40A(3) is attracted in this case. We uphold the action of Page 14 of 16 Simran Developers Assessment year 2014-15 Ld. AO and so also the disallowance made by him. Thus, this ground is allowed. 19. Resultantly, this appeal of revenue is partly allowed

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

4. Ground no.2 is regarding disallowance made u/s 40A(3) of the Act in the respect of payment of cash of Rs. 17.50 lakhs initially the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 14.03.2013 whereby the AO assessed the total income at Rs.85,05,390/- as against return income of Rs.17,65,390/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened vide notice

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

4. Ground no.2 is regarding disallowance made u/s 40A(3) of the Act in the respect of payment of cash of Rs. 17.50 lakhs initially the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 14.03.2013 whereby the AO assessed the total income at Rs.85,05,390/- as against return income of Rs.17,65,390/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened vide notice

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

4. Ground no.2 is regarding disallowance made u/s 40A(3) of the Act in the respect of payment of cash of Rs. 17.50 lakhs initially the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 14.03.2013 whereby the AO assessed the total income at Rs.85,05,390/- as against return income of Rs.17,65,390/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened vide notice

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

4. Ground no.2 is regarding disallowance made u/s 40A(3) of the Act in the respect of payment of cash of Rs. 17.50 lakhs initially the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 14.03.2013 whereby the AO assessed the total income at Rs.85,05,390/- as against return income of Rs.17,65,390/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened vide notice

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT-1 (1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

4. Ground no.2 is regarding disallowance made u/s 40A(3) of the Act in the respect of payment of cash of Rs. 17.50 lakhs initially the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 14.03.2013 whereby the AO assessed the total income at Rs.85,05,390/- as against return income of Rs.17,65,390/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened vide notice

SHRI HUMAD JAIN SAKH SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,INDORE vs. ITO 2(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

3) CIT\n(4) CIT(A)\n(5) Departmental Representative\n(6) Guard File\nSd/-\n(B.M. BIYANI)\nACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nBy order\nSr. Private Secretary\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nIndore Bench, Indore\nPage 30 of 30", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee, a credit co-operative society, did not file an income tax return for AY 2012-13. The AO initiated reassessment

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 51,04,755/- made by the AO.” Ground No. 1 of AY 2009-10 and 2010-11: 4. These grounds are legal grounds and challenge the validity of Revenue’s action u/s 147. However, at the time of hearing, the Ld. AR representing the assessee prayed not to press these grounds. Accordingly

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 51,04,755/- made by the AO.” Ground No. 1 of AY 2009-10 and 2010-11: 4. These grounds are legal grounds and challenge the validity of Revenue’s action u/s 147. However, at the time of hearing, the Ld. AR representing the assessee prayed not to press these grounds. Accordingly