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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowing entire deprecation claimed by appellant and secondly not justified in estimating NP @ 5%. Thus, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 2,04,60,184/- is Deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed.” 18. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the facts discussed above squarely establish that

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowing entire deprecation claimed by appellant and secondly not justified in estimating NP @ 5%. Thus, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 2,04,60,184/- is Deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed.” 18. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the facts discussed above squarely establish that

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowing entire deprecation claimed by appellant and secondly not justified in estimating NP @ 5%. Thus, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 2,04,60,184/- is Deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed.” 18. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the facts discussed above squarely establish that

DXC TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT LTD,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

42,404/-\nand since the Assessee had already made a disallowance of Rs.3 Lacs, no\nfurther disallowance was called for.\n35. In order to disallow this expense the AO had to first record, on\nexamining the accounts, that he was not satisfied with the\ncorrectness of the Assessee's claim of Rs.3 lakhs being the\nadministrative expenses. This was mandatorily

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

disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court held that rule 6DD(j) is not exhaustive of the circumstances in which the proviso to section 40A(3) is applicable and it only illustrative. The Hon'ble High Court refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Smt. Harshila Chordia

MALWA OXYGEN AND INDUSTRIAL GASES PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECTOR C, INDUSTRIAL AREA vs. AO-RATLAM/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, RATLAM/DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section\n35(2AB) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the disallowed capital Research\nand development expenses be capitalised and consequent depreciation be\ndirected to be allowed.\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A)\nerred in not allowing the consequent deductions and allowances permissible\nunder the Act and assessing the correct

JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 194C disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is attracted ? 5. The issues involved in various grounds raised by parties are identified and tabulated thus: No. Issue A.Y. Assessee’s Revenue’s Ground No. Ground No. 1 Unexplained investment in the form of cash loans 2013-14 1,2,3 and notional interest thereon

THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE vs. JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 194C disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is attracted ? 5. The issues involved in various grounds raised by parties are identified and tabulated thus: No. Issue A.Y. Assessee’s Revenue’s Ground No. Ground No. 1 Unexplained investment in the form of cash loans 2013-14 1,2,3 and notional interest thereon

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

Disallowance u/s 40A(3) 14,34,307 Assessed income 8,42,92,165 4. Aggrieved by the additions/disallowances made by AO, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and succeeded partly. Now, the revenue has come in this appeal on various grounds assailing the relief given by CIT(A). We would be deciding grounds one by one in seriatim. Ground

RNG CONSTRUCTION CO.,INDIRA NAGAR vs. DCIT, DCIT-CPC

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshirng Construction Co. Dcit बनाम/ 14, Sector-A, Vs. Indira Nagar, Mandideep (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqfr9084B Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025

section 143(1) as noted above, we remand this issue back to the file of AO who will check the departmental record and thereafter re-decide the assessee’s claim of jurisdiction deficit. Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purpose. Ground No. 3 to 5: 13. In these grounds, the assessee challenges the merit of disallowance. The claim

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 of 40% of enhancement without doing any exercise to determine what should be the fair salary to the directors having regard to the services they have render to the assessee company. The Chennai Benches of the Tribunal in case of Carmel Softech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (supra) has considered an identical issue in para 6 as under

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 of 40% of enhancement without doing any exercise to determine what should be the fair salary to the directors having regard to the services they have render to the assessee company. The Chennai Benches of the Tribunal in case of Carmel Softech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (supra) has considered an identical issue in para 6 as under

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 of 40% of enhancement without doing any exercise to determine what should be the fair salary to the directors having regard to the services they have render to the assessee company. The Chennai Benches of the Tribunal in case of Carmel Softech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (supra) has considered an identical issue in para 6 as under

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 of 40% of enhancement without doing any exercise to determine what should be the fair salary to the directors having regard to the services they have render to the assessee company. The Chennai Benches of the Tribunal in case of Carmel Softech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (supra) has considered an identical issue in para 6 as under

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 of 40% of enhancement without doing any exercise to determine what should be the fair salary to the directors having regard to the services they have render to the assessee company. The Chennai Benches of the Tribunal in case of Carmel Softech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (supra) has considered an identical issue in para 6 as under

WE WIN LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 5 (1) , BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 We Win Limited, Dcit-Central 5(1) (Formerly: Survevin Bpo Bhopal बनाम/ Services Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aakcs 9368 J Assesseeby Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2023

section 40A(3). Lastly, the Ld. AR submitted that there are innumerable decisions of Hon’ble Courts where it has been held that there is no authority in Income-tax Act, 1961 whereby the authorities can make lump-sum disallowance. Ld. AR placed reliance on a few decisions including the decision of ITAT, Indore in DCIT-1(1), Indore

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 40% of enhancement without doing any exercise to determine what should be Page 19 of 21 Essarjee Constructions P. Ltd. Page 20 of 21 the fair salary to the directors having regard to the services they have render to the assessee company. The Chennai Benches of the Tribunal in case of Carmel Softech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (supra

MORNI SAREES PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance was under Section 36(1)(ii) of bonus as per\nimpugned intimation order and that Section 43B was nowhere in\npicture. Our attention was drawn to following:-\n\"But in this case, the bonus amount of Rs.7,19,000/- is shown as\nBonus payable as on 31/03/2020, which means that the actual\npayment was not made during the relevant