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

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 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

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

THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S MOENUS TEXTILE PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10

70,099/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, sround no.2 raised by the revenue stands dismiss. 9. Apropos to ground no.3 relating to disallowance of legal and professional expenses of Rs.16,08,000/- which have been deleted by the ld. CIT(A) and revenue has challenged this finding, we note that brief facts relating to this issue

PRAHLAD DAS GOYAL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT - 1(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2016-17 Prahlad Das Goyal, Dcit/Acit 1(1) 18, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abbpg3494L Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.08.2025

section 194-IA came into the statute. However, the CIT(A) upheld rest of the disallowance relatable to the payments of Rs. 19,00,000/- [the amount of disallowance upheld by CIT(A) comes to Rs. 5,70

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

70,000 13,34,319 Computer Services Ltd Total 44,81,373 8.1 The Appellant had submitted confirmation as evidence in respect of off- market purchase through broker M/s. Eden Financial Services, copies of sale invoices executed online through stock exchange after payment of Securities transaction tax, copies of ledger and other supporting documents and claimed that the disallowance

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

70,000/- to the related party the disallowance made by the AO on account of interest calculated @ 12% is not justified and the same is deleted. 21. Ground No.2 is regarding the addition made by the AO on account of agricultural income. The AO noted that the assessee has claimed agricultural income of Rs.5,96,964/- after the claiming expenditure

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

70,000/- to the related party the disallowance made by the AO on account of interest calculated @ 12% is not justified and the same is deleted. 21. Ground No.2 is regarding the addition made by the AO on account of agricultural income. The AO noted that the assessee has claimed agricultural income of Rs.5,96,964/- after the claiming expenditure

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

70,000/- to the related party the disallowance made by the AO on account of interest calculated @ 12% is not justified and the same is deleted. 21. Ground No.2 is regarding the addition made by the AO on account of agricultural income. The AO noted that the assessee has claimed agricultural income of Rs.5,96,964/- after the claiming expenditure

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

70,000/- to the related party the disallowance made by the AO on account of interest calculated @ 12% is not justified and the same is deleted. 21. Ground No.2 is regarding the addition made by the AO on account of agricultural income. The AO noted that the assessee has claimed agricultural income of Rs.5,96,964/- after the claiming expenditure

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

70,000/- to the related party the disallowance made by the AO on account of interest calculated @ 12% is not justified and the same is deleted. 21. Ground No.2 is regarding the addition made by the AO on account of agricultural income. The AO noted that the assessee has claimed agricultural income of Rs.5,96,964/- after the claiming expenditure

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL vs. M/S. M. AHUJA PROJECT (INDIA) PVT. LTD., RAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of revenue are dismissed

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

70,74,967/- of his own and the advances, if at all, being interest free, is to the extent of Rs. 98,93,950/- which is far below the capital of the assessee and, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that to the extent of his own capital the assessee could advance money without interest for business

ACIT CENTRAL-2 BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S M AHUJA PROJECT ( INDIA) P LTD, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of revenue are dismissed

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

70,74,967/- of his own and the advances, if at all, being interest free, is to the extent of Rs. 98,93,950/- which is far below the capital of the assessee and, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that to the extent of his own capital the assessee could advance money without interest for business

M/S. M. AHUJA PROJECT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of revenue are dismissed

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

70,74,967/- of his own and the advances, if at all, being interest free, is to the extent of Rs. 98,93,950/- which is far below the capital of the assessee and, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that to the extent of his own capital the assessee could advance money without interest for business

M/S. M. AHUJA PROJECT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of revenue are dismissed

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

70,74,967/- of his own and the advances, if at all, being interest free, is to the extent of Rs. 98,93,950/- which is far below the capital of the assessee and, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that to the extent of his own capital the assessee could advance money without interest for business

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

disallowing expenditure towards earning of such income, under section 14A, whereas, no expenditure was in fact incurred by the assessee towards earning such income. 25. The ld. AO has erred in computing interest u/s 234B of the Act on the assessed income since the addition to the returned income on account of Transfer Pricing adjustment is only a notional income

SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL,VIDISHA vs. ITO, VIDISHA, VIDISHA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2019-20 Subhash Chandra Ito, Agrawal, Vidisha बनाम/ Galla Mandi, Vs. Vidisha (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afrpa8769A Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri Jaideep Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2026

70,93,460/- inclusive of taxable capital gain of Rs. 61,65,291/-. In effect, the AO made an addition/upward adjustment of Rs. 33,80,000/- in taxable capital gain/total income. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but did not get success. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 3. The facts apropos