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

disallowance of Rs.2,75,000/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act on account of cash payment to the farmers/land owners. During the course of scrutiny assessment the AO noted that the assessee has made cash payments to various parties in excess of Rs.20000/- as prescribed the limit envisaged in the provisions of section

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

disallowance under section 40A(3) is not sustainable. He has then relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High

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

disallowance under section 40A(3) is not sustainable. He has then relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High

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

disallowance under section 40A(3) is not sustainable. He has then relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High

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

disallowance under section 40A(3) is not sustainable. He has then relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High

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

disallowance under section 40A(3) is not sustainable. He has then relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the 8,12,755 Act 5 Employee remuneration and benefit 18,91,316 6 Disallowance

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the 8,12,755 Act 5 Employee remuneration and benefit 18,91,316 6 Disallowance

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the 8,12,755 Act 5 Employee remuneration and benefit 18,91,316 6 Disallowance

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). Accordingly, the AO made disallowance. 36. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by observing

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). Ld. AO show-caused the assessee as to why disallowance u/s 40A(3) may not be made

ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S RUCHI J OIL PVT. LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 40A(2)(a) provides for disallowance of such expenditure if the same is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the services

THE ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN vs. SHRI JASWINDAR SINGH OBEROI, UJJAIN

In the result, appeal of revenue is partly allowed

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

section 40A(3) of the Act. Accordingly the AO disallowed the sum of Rs.1,26,13,496/- under section 40A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S. IDEAL ASHIYANA PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit-2(1) M/S Ideal Ashiyana Indore Private Ltd., Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aadci 0029 F Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Final Hearing 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.12.2022

disallowance u/s 40A(3). 13. Ld. AO has made this addition by observing and holding thus: “5. Cash payment more than Rs.20,000/- under section

MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. ACIT- (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

section 40A(3) and also in making impugned disallowance. Thus, disallowance made by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 2,53,63,900/- in A.Y. 2015-16 and Rs. 1,58,16,000/- in A.Y. 2016-17 are hereby

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

section 40A(3) and also in making impugned disallowance. Thus, disallowance made by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 2,53,63,900/- in A.Y. 2015-16 and Rs. 1,58,16,000/- in A.Y. 2016-17 are hereby

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

section 40A(3) and also in making impugned disallowance. Thus, disallowance made by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 2,53,63,900/- in A.Y. 2015-16 and Rs. 1,58,16,000/- in A.Y. 2016-17 are hereby

THE ACIT,CENTRAL-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

section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 providing for admissibility of electronic records as evidence have not been followed. The appellant has also placed reliance on certain decisions wherein on identical facts, similar addition made have been deleted. The appellant has also challenged the addition made on protective basis on the contention that the said amount