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

65,61,000/- the assessee has suo moto disallowed such amount of Rs.20,37,506/-. In fact, the current investments were Rs.14,11,59,91,000/- and for such exorbitant investment the assesses has not invoked the disallowance under 14A read with Rule 8D. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly made disallowance/addition in respect of Section

SHRI ARUN KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA,INDORE vs. ASSTT, DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Shri Arun Kumar Adit, Cpc, Shrivastava, Bangalore 9, Shakti Nagar, Vs. Kanadia Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aopps 9595 H Assessee By Shri Soumya Bomb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delayed payment of employee’s contributions to PF / ESI made by CPC through intimation issued u/s 143(1). 5. Ld. AR representing the assessee referred to the orders of lower authorities, the grounds raised in Appeal-Memo and Written-Submission filed by him and submitted that the impugned disallowance

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 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 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

65,695/- thereon. Without considering the fact that assessee had taken unsecured loans from the Page 1 of 37 DCIT v. Ravi Arora Assessment year 2011-12 companies such as M/s. Jayant Securities & Finance Ltd., which has been proved entry provider company after investigation. (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SHRI MANISH KALANI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in both the assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act on disallowance made of Rs.1,65,488/- under section 14A of Income Tax Act. 9. Both

SHRI SAURABH KALANI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in both the assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act on disallowance made of Rs.1,65,488/- under section 14A of Income Tax Act. 9. Both

ITO 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S AMKAY COLONISERS & BUILDERS P LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ito 1(1) M/S. Amkay Colonisers & Bhopal Builders Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 16, Amar Stambh, Z-1, M.P. Nagar Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue ) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaeca 6272 F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.12.2022

65,031/- is being disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and addition of Rs.4,65,031/- is made

M/S INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,INDORE vs. THE ACIT (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2011-12 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit- Indore Development Authority, बनाम/ (Exemption) Ida Building,7, Race Course Vs. Road, Indore Bhopal (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Years: 2012-13 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue)

65,419/- on account of 4/5th disallowance out of City Environmental Development and Preservation Expenses. 14. We observe that the primary object of the assessee is to implement development plan, prepare one or more town development schemes and develop of land in accordance with Rules made by the State Government, by virtue of section

M/S INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,INDORE vs. THE DCIT, 5(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2011-12 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit- Indore Development Authority, बनाम/ (Exemption) Ida Building,7, Race Course Vs. Road, Indore Bhopal (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Years: 2012-13 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue)

65,419/- on account of 4/5th disallowance out of City Environmental Development and Preservation Expenses. 14. We observe that the primary object of the assessee is to implement development plan, prepare one or more town development schemes and develop of land in accordance with Rules made by the State Government, by virtue of section

THE DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL vs. M/S. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2011-12 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit- Indore Development Authority, बनाम/ (Exemption) Ida Building,7, Race Course Vs. Road, Indore Bhopal (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Years: 2012-13 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue)

65,419/- on account of 4/5th disallowance out of City Environmental Development and Preservation Expenses. 14. We observe that the primary object of the assessee is to implement development plan, prepare one or more town development schemes and develop of land in accordance with Rules made by the State Government, by virtue of section

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

section 14A r.w.r. 8D cannot be made applicable in a vacuum i.e. in the absence of exempt income. Decision of Honorable Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd. [(2015) 372 ITR 0097 (Guj) E For the proposition that the disallowance is not tenable where the AO did not recorded proper satisfaction. Decision of Honorable High Court

THEACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KETI CONSTRUCTION LTD., INDORE

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit(Central)-2 M/S Keti Construction Ltd Indore Vastalya Chamebers, Sapna Sangeeta, 31/6, Sneh Nagar Vs. Main Road, Indore

65,541/- on account of noncompliance of TDS u/s 40a(ia) of the Page 3 of 14 ITA No.329 /Ind/2022 Keti Construction ltd. Page 4 of 14 Act. Thus, about 50% of the total expenses debited in the profit and loss account were already disallowed by the assessee while computing total income in view of the provision of section

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available