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

57,527/- and the remaining part as substantive addition. 5. On careful consideration of the above rival submissions, first of all, we note that the AO invoked the provisions of section 147 of the Act and, thereafter, concluded that the losses obtained by the assessee on NMCE platform were contrived CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 losses and those losses were incurred

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT-CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before us. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company was incorporated in India on 13.09.1996. The assessee provides software development and maintenance services from STPI and SEZ registered units. The primary activities of the assessee relate to provision

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 2(1) , INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before us. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company was incorporated in India on 13.09.1996. The assessee provides software development and maintenance services from STPI and SEZ registered units. The primary activities of the assessee relate to provision

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before us. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company was incorporated in India on 13.09.1996. The assessee provides software development and maintenance services from STPI and SEZ registered units. The primary activities of the assessee relate to provision

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

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, 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 NIMAR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KHANDWA vs. THE EXEMPTION CIRCLE, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanithe Nimar Educational Society Cit(E) Harsud Road, Civil Lines Bhopal Vs. East Nimar, Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabtt 1409 K Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.06.2023

section 57(iii) of the Act. Therefore, the expenditure incurred by the assessee only for the purpose of activities are to be allowed. The Coordinate Bench of this tribunal in case of DCIT(E) Bhopal vs. Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College (supra) has considered this issue as under: “10. We will first take up the second issue raised by the revenue

CENTRAL INDIA ACADEMY ,DEWAS vs. THE4 PCIT-1,INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Central India Academy, Pcit-1, 1, Bhopal Road, Indore बनाम/ Jetpura, Vs. Dewas (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaaac4091Q Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Negi, Adv. & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14.03.2024

section 57(iii)/30(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot be said to have resulted in passing any erroneous order. Ld. AR drew our attention to Para No. 13 and 14 of assessment-order where the AO has made substantial disallowances

M/S RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIK VISHWAVIDHALYA,HOSANGABAD vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 324 & 325/Ind/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vs. Dcit, Vishwavidyalaya, Cpc, Bhopal Bangaluru

disallowing deduction by intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act is not proper.” 13. The Revenue has not rebutted the fact that the assessee had made claim u/s 10 as well as under section 10 in column no.13 in the return of income and also made the claim u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) as per column

M/S RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIK VISHWAVIDHALYA,HOSANGABAD vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 324 & 325/Ind/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vs. Dcit, Vishwavidyalaya, Cpc, Bhopal Bangaluru

disallowing deduction by intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act is not proper.” 13. The Revenue has not rebutted the fact that the assessee had made claim u/s 10 as well as under section 10 in column no.13 in the return of income and also made the claim u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) as per column

GOPAL MUWEL,MANAWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshigopal Muwel, Ito बनाम/ Morad, Manawar, Dhar Vs. Dhar (Pan: Caapm6256Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Lucky Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 57,86,200/- claimed u/s 57 of the Act, although the grounds of appeal are drafted clumsily. The appellant on his own has declared income from contract works as business income and offered profit in terms of section

SHRI VINAYAK KALANI,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Vinayak Kalani, Dy. Cit, 6Th Floor, 1(1), Treasure Island, Indore. बनाम/ 11, Tukoganju Main Road, Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Atgpk8379P Assessee By Shri Manjeet Sachdeva, Adv. & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024

section 57(iii). In present case, there is no submission by assessee to prove this factum. Therefore, the assessee is required to submit clinching particulars to AO in this regard. At the same we also find that the AO has disallowed

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. ARIHANT CAPITAL MARKETS LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance under section 14A of the Act is not warranted. The High Court has further held that reliance placed by the Special Bench on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Moody was misplaced in as much as the Supreme Court in the said case dealt with the interpretation of section 57

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)

disallowing freight expenses amounting to, Rs. 1,57,51,980/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of Income-tax Act, 1961, for non- deduction of TDS on freight expenses by assessee, ignoring that : a) The assessee was liable to deduct TDS on such expenses and has failed to do so ? b) Without prejudice to the above, additional evidence was admitted without giving

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)

disallowing freight expenses amounting to, Rs. 1,57,51,980/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of Income-tax Act, 1961, for non- deduction of TDS on freight expenses by assessee, ignoring that : a) The assessee was liable to deduct TDS on such expenses and has failed to do so ? b) Without prejudice to the above, additional evidence was admitted without giving

KAMAL SHADIJA,INDORE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX EPARTMENT, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2020-21 Kamal Shadija Assessment Unit 156, Palsikar Colony, Income Tax Department बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Azsps4490H Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026

section 57, the AO made disallowance and ultimately imposed penalty also. The assessee is only contesting penalty imposed by AO, he has not filed

DECENT INDUSTRIES P. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Decent Industries Ito-1(2), Private Ltd, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Corporate Park, बनाम/ Db City Area Hills, Vs. Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeca6271G Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta & Shri N.K. Gupta Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

section 14A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee.” 23. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) upheld disallowance by passing following order: “5.8 Ground No. 2 pertains to the issue of disallowance of deduction u/s 14A of the Act on account of disallowance of expenses of Rs. 57