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

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)

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS out of freight payments made to truck-owners]. 16. Ld. DR for revenue submitted that during first-appellate proceeding, the assessee filed certain ‘additional evidences’ under Rule 46A of Income- tax Rules, 1962 to CIT(A) with regard to Issue No. 5 and 6. Acting thereupon, the CIT(A) sent

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)

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS out of freight payments made to truck-owners]. 16. Ld. DR for revenue submitted that during first-appellate proceeding, the assessee filed certain ‘additional evidences’ under Rule 46A of Income- tax Rules, 1962 to CIT(A) with regard to Issue No. 5 and 6. Acting thereupon, the CIT(A) sent

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

46A. On a careful consideration of the appeal-order of Ld. CIT(A), we observe that the Ld. CIT(A) has taken into account the evidences/documents filed by assessee and having regard to the nature of business carried on by assessee, came to a conclusion that the three ingredients of section 68 stood successfully proved by assessee. The observations

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAJEEV AJMERA, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-3(1) Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Co No.23/Ind/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.51/Ind/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Dcit-3(1) Indore Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Assessee By Shri Mahendra Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2022 आदेश/ O R D E R

disallowance for two reasons, viz. (i) the assessee could not furnish full evidences in support of the commission- payment, and (ii) the assessee could not produce the payees in person for verification. But we observe that during the course of appeal-proceeding before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has produced voluminous evidences, as narrated earlier, by means of Rule 46A

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

disallowance. These two grounds of the Revenue are accordingly rejected. 35. Ground No.14 & 15: Issue raised in these two grounds relates to share of profits of Rs.25,56,208/- from partnership firm “Rohit International” treated the same as “unexplained”. These two grounds read as under: 14. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

disallowance. These two grounds of the Revenue are accordingly rejected. 35. Ground No.14 & 15: Issue raised in these two grounds relates to share of profits of Rs.25,56,208/- from partnership firm “Rohit International” treated the same as “unexplained”. These two grounds read as under: 14. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, 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

disallowance. These two grounds of the Revenue are accordingly rejected. 35. Ground No.14 & 15: Issue raised in these two grounds relates to share of profits of Rs.25,56,208/- from partnership firm “Rohit International” treated the same as “unexplained”. These two grounds read as under: 14. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SOM DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Som Distilleries & Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Breweries Limited, 1(1), Vs. Som House, Bhopal. 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay:2014-15 Acit (Central)-1, Som Distilleries & बनाम/ Bhopal Breweries Limited, Vs. Som House, 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

section 201(1). But, on perusal of Form No. 26A, the AO found that UBL has declared income of Rs. 2,59,72,000/- only in its return of income filed to department. Accordingly, the AO did not grant benefit of differential of Rs. 47,86,252/- [Rs. 3,07,58,252/- (-) Rs. 2,59,72,000/-] and made disallowance

ACIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LTD., BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Som Distilleries & Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Breweries Limited, 1(1), Vs. Som House, Bhopal. 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay:2014-15 Acit (Central)-1, Som Distilleries & बनाम/ Bhopal Breweries Limited, Vs. Som House, 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

section 201(1). But, on perusal of Form No. 26A, the AO found that UBL has declared income of Rs. 2,59,72,000/- only in its return of income filed to department. Accordingly, the AO did not grant benefit of differential of Rs. 47,86,252/- [Rs. 3,07,58,252/- (-) Rs. 2,59,72,000/-] and made disallowance

THE ITO-2(2), INDORE vs. SMT. MOHAN BAI POKHRANA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.468/Ind/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2009-10

46A of I T Rules, 1962. 2. Through Ground no. 1 and 2, the Revenue has challenged the direction of Ld. CIT (A) to allow exemption under section 54EC of the Act even the assessee had not made deposit in REC Bond within the specified period of six months from the date of transfer of the asset as specified under

THE ACIT, 5(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAJ KUMAR SHAMBHUDAYAL AGRAWAL, INDORE

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2011-12 Acit 5(1) Shri Raj Kumar Indore Shambhudayal Agrawal बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Adcpa0468M Revenue By Shri Rajeeb Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By S/Shri C.P. Rawka & Veenus Rawka, Cas Date Of Hearing: 13.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.11.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal At The Instance Of Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Iii, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Indore Dated 25.11.2016 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(In Short The ‘Act’) Dated 27.02.2014 Framed By Dcit-5(1) Indore.

disallowances made by AO. 2.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 4,75,38,000/- ignoring the findings in the assessment order and remand report & also not verifying the source of investment made by the assessee. 3.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL , BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

Section 145 are applicable. The books of accounts are also not been rejected, hence the adhoc disallowance are wholly unlawful and unjustified. The assessee submits that the disallowance is neither justified nor lawful. From the perusal of the chart, the increase in mainly on account Page 32 of 54 Som Distilleries Private Limited I.T.A. Nos. 272 & 289/Ind/2023

SOM DISTILLERIES PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(3), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

Section 145 are applicable. The books of accounts are also not been rejected, hence the adhoc disallowance are wholly unlawful and unjustified. The assessee submits that the disallowance is neither justified nor lawful. From the perusal of the chart, the increase in mainly on account Page 32 of 54 Som Distilleries Private Limited I.T.A. Nos. 272 & 289/Ind/2023

THE ACIT (CENTRAL) II, BHOPAL vs. M/S SIGNATURE BUILDERS, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

46A and on the basis of those evidences, the impugned expenses were fully verified and proved. Ld. AR submitted that in such circumstances, ideally the Ld. CIT(A) should have deleted the full disallowance of Rs. 2,11,055/- but however the Ld. CIT(A), for the reasons best known to him, had confirmed disallowance to the extent

DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL vs. VANASHPATI SMRITI SHIKSHA SAMITI, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the cross- objection of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani(Virtual Hearing) & C.O. No.33/Ind/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit (Exemption) Vanashpati Smriti Bhopal Shiksha Samiti, Bhopal बनाम/ (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Vs. P.A. No. Aadts0547H Appellant By Shri P.K. Mitra Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Pavan Ved, Ar Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

disallowed excess payment of Rs. 4,80,000/- by invoking section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3). Vanshpati Smriti Shiksha Samiti ITA No.24/Ind/2021 & CO No. 33/Ind/2021 – AY 2016-17 19. The Ld. CIT(A) has made an elaborate analysis of this issue running over Page No. 7 to 14 of his order, which includes the submissions made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12(1), INDORE vs. M/S CPR DISTRIBUTORS P.L., INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2011-12 Dcit-2(1), M/S. Cpr Distributors Indore Vs. Pvt. Ltd (M.P), 13, Sneh Nagar, Sapna Sangeeta, Indore (Revenue) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aabcc8324M

Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act and the Ld. A.O has rightly disallowed the expenses. 8. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Revenue’s grievance in Ground No.1 is against the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of commission expenses of Rs.67,00,000/-. We observe that the assessee

ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR ,PROP- ANMOL TRADERS ,BUS STAND , BAKTRA BUDHNI ,DISTRICT SEHORE, BHOPAL

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14 Acit 3(1) Shri Pramod Kumar, Prop- Bhopal Anmol Traders, बनाम/ Sehore, Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. Anbpk1185G Revenue By Shri Amit Soni, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Date Of Hearing: 09.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.12.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal At The Instance Of Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Bhopal Dated 24.09.2020 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(In Short The ‘Act’) Dated 18.02.2016 Framed By Acit-3(1) Bhopal.

disallowed interest expenditure of Rs.2,69,509/-. Income assessed at Rs. 3,42,74,460/-. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. 4. Now revenue is in appeal raising following sole ground: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in:- 1.Whether in the facts