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

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

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

disallowance of expenses under Section 40A(3) of the Act amounting to Rs.37,15,000/-. The ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 7

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

7 of 21 activities. There is no restriction on the assessee in his trading activities. Section 40A(3) only empowers the assessing officer to disallow

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

Disallowance out of Business Promotion Expenses as per para-4 Rs. 1,00,000/- Difference on accounts as per para - 5 Rs. 16,131/- 4. Unsecured loans as per para - 6 Rs. 30,000/- 5. Gratuity claim u/s 40A(7) as per para - 7 Rs. 1,45,87,125/- 6. Prepayment penalty as per para

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(ia) of the 16,01,614 Act 7 Communication, conveyance, water & electricity, office running & maintenance, 12,37,512 travelling

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(ia) of the 16,01,614 Act 7 Communication, conveyance, water & electricity, office running & maintenance, 12,37,512 travelling

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Disallowance under Section 40a(ia) of the 16,01,614 Act 7 Communication, conveyance, water & electricity, office running & maintenance, 12,37,512 travelling

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

7. Ld. DR has referred to the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the genuineness of the transaction is not relevant for disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Vaduganathan Talkies

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

7. Ld. DR has referred to the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the genuineness of the transaction is not relevant for disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Vaduganathan Talkies

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

7. Ld. DR has referred to the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the genuineness of the transaction is not relevant for disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Vaduganathan Talkies

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

7. Ld. DR has referred to the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the genuineness of the transaction is not relevant for disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Vaduganathan Talkies

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

7. Ld. DR has referred to the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the genuineness of the transaction is not relevant for disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Vaduganathan Talkies

M/S BEYOND KEY SYSTEMS P LTD,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1(1) , INDORE

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Beyond Key Systems Dcit/Acit-Circle,1(1) Private Ltd. Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaccb 7622 G Assessee By Shri Manish Dafaria, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.01.2023

40A(7). This resulted in double-disallowance of the same amount, one by way of section 43B and other by way of section

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) of the I. T. Act.” 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case- records perused. 3. Brief facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee- individual submitted his return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 17,29,650/- which was subjected to scrutiny assessment u/s 143(2). Finally

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

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

7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through decisions referred and relied by the Ld. counsel for the assessee. The revenue’s sole grievance is that ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271AA of the Act @ 2% of the transaction of purchase of an undertaking

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

disallowance of Rs. 2,53,63,900/- in AY 2015-16 and Rs. 1,58,16,000/- in AY 2016-17 made by AO u/s 40A(3) on account of cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/- towards salary/hamali expenses. Page 4 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023 AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 7