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

SMT. SARITA CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA L/H SHRI PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

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

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

3 Site expenses 75,23,136 4 Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the 8,12,755 Act 5 Employee

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

3 Site expenses 75,23,136 4 Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the 8,12,755 Act 5 Employee

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

3 Site expenses 75,23,136 4 Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the 8,12,755 Act 5 Employee

M/S SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEEMUCH vs. THE DCIT, RATLAM

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the assessee company as a ‘Work Contractor’ and not ‘Developer’ by the Department. ii. The ground of appeal preferred by the Revenue is against the deletion of disallowance on account of repair and maintenance of Rs. 61,50,730/- by holding the provision is allowable expenditure. ITA No. 65/Ind/2017

M/S SHRI BALAJI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ,NEEMUCH vs. DCIT, RATLAM

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the assessee company as a ‘Work Contractor’ and not ‘Developer’ by the Department. ii. The ground of appeal preferred by the Revenue is against the deletion of disallowance on account of repair and maintenance of Rs. 61,50,730/- by holding the provision is allowable expenditure. ITA No. 65/Ind/2017

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

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

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

3) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance of entire expenses as claimed by the assessee of Rs 4,90,583/- against its coaching income without properly appreciating the fact of the case and submission made before him. 4) That on the facts and in the circumstances

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

3) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance of entire expenses as claimed by the assessee of Rs 4,90,583/- against its coaching income without properly appreciating the fact of the case and submission made before him. 4) That on the facts and in the circumstances

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

3) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance of entire expenses as claimed by the assessee of Rs 4,90,583/- against its coaching income without properly appreciating the fact of the case and submission made before him. 4) That on the facts and in the circumstances

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

3) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance of entire expenses as claimed by the assessee of Rs 4,90,583/- against its coaching income without properly appreciating the fact of the case and submission made before him. 4) That on the facts and in the circumstances

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1) RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

3) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance of entire expenses as claimed by the assessee of Rs 4,90,583/- against its coaching income without properly appreciating the fact of the case and submission made before him. 4) That on 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