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

79,027/- was made on account of the upward adjustment for software services by the TPO and addition of Rs.6,07,00,658/- was made for disallowance under Section

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

79,027/- was made on account of the upward adjustment for software services by the TPO and addition of Rs.6,07,00,658/- was made for disallowance under Section

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

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

79,955/-. The\nAppellant prays that deduction of expenses be directed to be allowed.\n4. Without prejudice to Ground 1 above and on the facts and circumstances\nof the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the\ncapitalisation of disallowed capital expenditure claimed under section

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

79,808/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the same on the ground that the assessee has made interest payment at a very small rate of interest of 3.6% whereas in other cases interest payment ranged from 7% to 26.1%. Therefore, it raised a doubt that the loans were not genuine. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the action

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

section 40a(ia) whereas the AO has made an adhoc disallowance by considering the total expenditure debited in the profit and loss account without considering fact that the assessee has already made suo-moto disallowance about 50% of the expenses u/s 40a(ia). He has relied upon the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5. We have considered

ACIT, KHANDWA vs. M/S C.P. INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. , BURHANPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble V. Durga Rao & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. C.P. Industrial Income Tax, Vs. Products Pvt. Ltd, Khandwa Burhanpur (M.P) (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaccc1362 Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal. Sr. D.R. Assessee By S/Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ca’S Date Of Hearing 25.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2019 O R D E R

disallowance by invoking the provision of section 14A of the Act. J Further on perusal of the Balance sheet, your Hon' our will find that the assessee@ taken loan from IDBI Bank in form of cash credit limit and was having Outstanding Balance of loan of Rs. 5,79

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

BHARAT SHAH,INDORE vs. THE ITO3(4), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance of Section 54F exemption 1. Absence of registration deed should not affect exemption under Section 54F •The benefit to be availed under Section 54F stipulates the purchase or construction of a new house property. It is immaterial if such purchase has been evidenced by a registered deed or not. Merely on account of absence of registered sale deed

M/S. SOM DISTILLERIES & BREWERIES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result Ground No.2 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Pan : Aabcs3374B

79,206/-. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance referring and relying on various decisions observing as follows; 5.6 I have gone through the judicial decisions cited by the appellant. 5.7 In the case of Rajeev Kumar Agarwal Vs. Addl. CIT reported in 165 ITJ 228, the ITAT, Agra has held that insertion of second proviso to section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1) , BHOPAL vs. M/S. SOM DISTILLERIES & BREWERIES LTD., BHOPAL

In the result Ground No.2 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Pan : Aabcs3374B

79,206/-. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance referring and relying on various decisions observing as follows; 5.6 I have gone through the judicial decisions cited by the appellant. 5.7 In the case of Rajeev Kumar Agarwal Vs. Addl. CIT reported in 165 ITJ 228, the ITAT, Agra has held that insertion of second proviso to section

MADHYA PRADESH COUNSALTANCY ORGANISATION LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S M.P. Consultancy Acit-2(1) बनाम/ Organization Ltd., Bhopal Vs. Block -2, 3Rd Floor Paryawas Bhawan, Arera Hills Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aabcm0090J Appellant By Shri M.K. Sharma, Ca Revenue By Smt. Vineeta Dube, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 .09.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Bhopal, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Dated 30.03.2017 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 23.-2.2016 By Acit- 2(1), Bhopal.

79,078/- and addition for interest u/s 56 of the Act at Rs.35,230/- during the course of hearing no submissions were made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. No written submissions have been filed. It seems that the assessee is not interested in contesting/pressing these grounds. We, therefore, are of the view that ground No.1 & 2 deserves

SHREE SIDH BALAJI SAKH SAHKARITA MARYADIT,UJJAIN vs. ASST DIRECTOR CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2019-20 Shree Sidh Balaji Sakh Assistant Director Cpc, Sahkarita Maryadit, Bangalore बनाम/ Ramghat Marg, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaja57480G Assessee By Ms.Sonam Khandelwal, Adv. Revenue By Shri Sanjeev H.Bhagat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.12.2024

79,940/- was made on this account. The assessee challenged the action of C.P.C. before the Ld. CIT(A), but could not succeed. 4. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee as well as the Ld. Departmental Representative and considered the material on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee has relied upon the decision

DEWAS METAL SECTIONS LTD,DEWAS vs. DY. CIT, RANGE 1(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Dewas Metal Sections Ltd., Dcit, 1,Village Amona, Range 1(1), बनाम/ A.B. Road, Indore. Vs. Dewas (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan : Aabcdo739K Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

79,263/-) as “Old Balance of Education Cess Written off” and claimed deduction thereof but the same was disallowable u/s 40(a)(ii) because of Amendment made by Finance Act, 2022 w.r.e.f. 01.04.2005 [by way of insertion of Explanation 3 to section

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

79 ITR 499 (SC), rise to any question of law.” 11. Therefore, the disallowance u/s 40A(3) cannot be made without considering the business expediency and other relevant factors falling in the exceptions given in Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules. The Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in asessee’s own case for arising from the original assessment order passed

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

79 ITR 499 (SC), rise to any question of law.” 11. Therefore, the disallowance u/s 40A(3) cannot be made without considering the business expediency and other relevant factors falling in the exceptions given in Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules. The Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in asessee’s own case for arising from the original assessment order passed