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

8D. The assessee filed objection against the draft Assessment Oder. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) passed order under Section 144C(5) of the Act on 22.12.2015 directing the Assessing Officer to modify the Assessment Order as per the directions given under Section 144C(5) of the Act. In the directions, the AO observed that the DRP had upheld the disallowance

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

8D. The assessee filed objection against the draft Assessment Oder. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) passed order under Section 144C(5) of the Act on 22.12.2015 directing the Assessing Officer to modify the Assessment Order as per the directions given under Section 144C(5) of the Act. In the directions, the AO observed that the DRP had upheld the disallowance

INFOBEANS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE, M.P.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed being devoid of

Bench: Sh. Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

section 14(2A) , prior to working out disallowance as per Rule 8D of the Rules 62 . 23. The Ld AR rested

ACIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

Appeal are ALLOWED”

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit 1(1), Bridgestone India Private Indore Limited, Plot No. A-43, बनाम/ Phase Ii, M.I.D.C Chakan, Vs. S.O Chakan, Pune (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabcb2304E Assessee By Shri Kaustubh Fadnis & Manoj Fadnis, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2025

section 145A prescribes “inclusive method”. Ld. AR submitted that whatever method is applied, there would be no impact on the net profit of assessee and this identical issue is already settled by ITAT, Indore in assessee’s own for AY 2012-13 order dated case being 30.01.2023. The CIT(A) has re-produced this order of ITAT on Page

SIGNET INDUSTRIES LTD. ,MAHARASHTRA vs. NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2013-14 Signet Industries Limited, Nfac, Delhi / Gala No. 02 & 03, Acit, Central-1, Indore Buiding No. A-2, Ground Floor, Print World Industrial बनाम/ Complex, Vs. Village Vehele Bhindwadi, Shastri Nagar, Thane (Maharastra) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aabcs3489F Assessee By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, C.A. & Ruchira Singhal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2024

8D(2)(ii) by AO is not sustainable. Going further, we also find a strong merit in Ld. AR’s argument that the disallowance cannot exceed the amount of exempt income of Rs. 29,800/- as per decisions in Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, ITA No. 117/2015 dated 25.02.2015 (Delhi HC) and Pr. CIT Vs. Empire Package

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S. TREASURE WORLD DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result both the Cross Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Treasure World Acit 4(1), बनाम/ Developers Pvt. Ltd, Indore Vs. Through Office Of The Official Liquidator, High Court Of Bombay, Bank Of India Building, 5Th Floor, M.G. Road, Indore (Pan: Abopb0352F ) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Acit 4(1), M/S. Treasure World बनाम/ Indore Developers Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Through Office Of The Official Liquidator, High Court Of Bombay, Bank Of India Building, 5Th Floor, M.G. Road, Indore (Pan: Abopb0352F ) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

disallowance of Rs.12,01,08,567/- on account of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(i) and Rs.1,40,50,474/- under rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rs.46,40,398/- under rule 8D(2)(iii) being 5% of average value of investment. 4. Ld. DR stated that the CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee and deleted the addition

M/S. TREASURE WORLD DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result both the Cross Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Treasure World Acit 4(1), बनाम/ Developers Pvt. Ltd, Indore Vs. Through Office Of The Official Liquidator, High Court Of Bombay, Bank Of India Building, 5Th Floor, M.G. Road, Indore (Pan: Abopb0352F ) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Acit 4(1), M/S. Treasure World बनाम/ Indore Developers Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Through Office Of The Official Liquidator, High Court Of Bombay, Bank Of India Building, 5Th Floor, M.G. Road, Indore (Pan: Abopb0352F ) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

disallowance of Rs.12,01,08,567/- on account of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(i) and Rs.1,40,50,474/- under rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rs.46,40,398/- under rule 8D(2)(iii) being 5% of average value of investment. 4. Ld. DR stated that the CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee and deleted the addition

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

section 14A for making disallowance and Rule 8D for computing the amount of disallowance. The AO noted that the magnitude

DECENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

8D was amended to include a proviso stating that the disallowance cannot exceed the total expenditure. This proviso is curative and applies retrospectively. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO needs to be restricted to the total expenditure of Rs. 4,47,278/-, which includes the assessee's suo moto disallowance.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections

AVAILABLE FINANCE LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1) , INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Sh. Bagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta

section 14A is not attracted in the instant case. However, as a gesture of cooperation, the assessee company suo moto disallowed one percentage ( 1% ) of yearly average of monthly average investment held in quoted equity shares as per amended Rule 8D

SHRI GURVINDER SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-3, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2009-10 Gurvinder Singh Bhatia, Addl. Cit, 8/5, Bcc House, Range 3, बनाम/ Manormaganj, Indore. Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abhpb 5245 N Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, Ca & Ld. Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.12.2023

disallowing an amount of Rs. 8,38,389/- on account of expenses incurred for earning exempted income by applying provision of Section 14A read with Rule 8D

SOM DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are partly allowed for

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

disallowance is as per statutory provision of Rule 8D(2)(iii) read with section 14A. On perusal of P&L A/c of assessee

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

Appeals are partly allowed for

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

disallowance is as per statutory provision of Rule 8D(2)(iii) read with section 14A. On perusal of P&L A/c of assessee

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)

disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D for expenses Page 3 of 33 Som Distilleries and Breweries Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 271/Ind/2023 (A.Y. 2013-14) & ITA No. 297/Ind/2023 (A.Y. 2014-15) incurred for earning such exempt income. During assessment-proceeding, the AO invoked section

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)

disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D for expenses Page 3 of 33 Som Distilleries and Breweries Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 271/Ind/2023 (A.Y. 2013-14) & ITA No. 297/Ind/2023 (A.Y. 2014-15) incurred for earning such exempt income. During assessment-proceeding, the AO invoked section

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18

8D of the Rules no disallowance can be made in the hands of the assessee when the assessee has not claimed any exempt income. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the written submissions of the assessee has granted relief to the assessee by following judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) where

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. FLEXITUFF VENTURES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, DHAR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Us Assailing The Order Of First-

section 14A made by AO without appreciating the facts and evidences mentioned in the assessment order by the AO. 2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in allowing amount of Rs. 10,61,10,839/- in the form of carry forward loss without appreciating the facts and evidences