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 under Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, shall be made where the assessee satisfies the Income-tax Officer that the payment could not be made by way of a crossed cheque drawn on a bank or by a crossed bank draft- a. due to exceptional or unavoidable circumstances; or b. because payment in the manner aforesaid

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

section 40A(3) are not attracted in this case when the payment of cash in question is genuine transaction and there was no scope of any tax avoidance. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Page 3 of 30 ITA No. 6 to 9 & 11/Ind/2023 Essarjee

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

section 40A(3) are not attracted in this case when the payment of cash in question is genuine transaction and there was no scope of any tax avoidance. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Page 3 of 30 ITA No. 6 to 9 & 11/Ind/2023 Essarjee

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

section 40A(3) are not attracted in this case when the payment of cash in question is genuine transaction and there was no scope of any tax avoidance. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Page 3 of 30 ITA No. 6 to 9 & 11/Ind/2023 Essarjee

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

section 40A(3) are not attracted in this case when the payment of cash in question is genuine transaction and there was no scope of any tax avoidance. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Page 3 of 30 ITA No. 6 to 9 & 11/Ind/2023 Essarjee

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

section 40A(3) are not attracted in this case when the payment of cash in question is genuine transaction and there was no scope of any tax avoidance. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Page 3 of 30 ITA No. 6 to 9 & 11/Ind/2023 Essarjee

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

40A(3) and Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act since the assessee did not make payment in cash to a single person on a single day in excess of Rs.20,000/- and that the assessee did not deduct TDS in respect of various other payments since those payments were not liable for deduction of TDS as per the provisions

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

40A(3) and Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act since the assessee did not make payment in cash to a single person on a single day in excess of Rs.20,000/- and that the assessee did not deduct TDS in respect of various other payments since those payments were not liable for deduction of TDS as per the provisions

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

40A(3) and Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act since the assessee did not make payment in cash to a single person on a single day in excess of Rs.20,000/- and that the assessee did not deduct TDS in respect of various other payments since those payments were not liable for deduction of TDS as per the provisions

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) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by making cash payment in excess of Rs. 20,000/-. (b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that the seller Shri Jineshwar Lallulalji Jain was well known to the assessee and the seller was maintaining regular bank account. (c) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the decision

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

9. Fails to keep and maintain any such information and document as required by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 92D; 10. Fails to report such transaction which is required to do so; or 11. Maintains or furnishes an incorrect information or document, The AO or Commissioner (Appeals) may direct that such person shall

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

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -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

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

40A(3) by ignoring the findings of Assessing Officer in the assessment order.” 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length on 15.09.2022 and the case was adjourned to 21.09.2022 for final hearing. On 21.09.2022, the case was again adjourned to 26.09.2022 at the request of Ld. DR. On 26.09.2022, none appeared on behalf of revenue, hence

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 deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is allowed.” [Emphasis supplied] 9

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 deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is allowed.” [Emphasis supplied] 9