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

section\n35(2AB) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the disallowed capital Research\nand development expenses be capitalised and consequent depreciation be\ndirected to be allowed.\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A)\nerred in not allowing the consequent deductions and allowances permissible\nunder the Act and assessing the correct

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

Disallowance u/s 40A(3) 14,34,307 Assessed income 8,42,92,165 4. Aggrieved by the additions/disallowances made by AO, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and succeeded partly. Now, the revenue has come in this appeal on various grounds assailing the relief given by CIT(A). We would be deciding grounds one by one in seriatim. Ground

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

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

92,27,902/- 19,22,790/-(10% disallowed) Total disallowance Rs.3,79,85,854/- 6. The AO has considered the total amount of Rs.3,79,85,854/- as found debited in the profit and loss account while making adhoc disallowance of 10%. The AO has completely ignored the fact that the assessee itself has Page 4 of 14 ITA No.329

THE DCIT,1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. RITSPIN SYNTHETICS LTD., PITHAMPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms indicated above, and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

92,957/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had accepted unsecured loans aggregating to ₹4,10,00,000/- from eight Kolkata-based unlisted private limited companies. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to establish the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness and the genuineness

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Us Assailing The Order Of First-

section shall apply and shall be deemed to have always applied in a case where the income, not forming part of the total income under this Act, has not accrued or arisen or has not been received during the previous year relevant to an assessment year and the expenditure has been incurred during the said previous year in relation

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. ODDIVILLE FOODS AND FROZEN, INDORE

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed\nand the order of the Ld

section 80-IA,\nrule 18BBB and proviso to rule 12(2). Accordingly, the AO disallowed\nassessee's claim of deduction of Rs.8,60,92

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO -1 (5), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Essargee Construction Ito 1(5) Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Vs. A-10, Mezenine Floor Essarjee House Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaace 8852F Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.08.2023

disallow the deduction claimed as expenditure in respect of which payment is not made by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft. The payment by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft is insisted on to enable the asses-sing authority to ascertain whether the payment was genuine or whether it was out of the income from disclosed sources. The terms

ANIL KUMAR GUPTA,BHOPAL vs. ITO, 4(3), BHOPAL, OFFICE OF ITO BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

disallowed extra interest of Rs.15,08,951/-.\n13.\nDuring first-appeal, the CIT(A) upheld AO's order.\n14.\nBefore us, Ld. AR for assessee made following submissions in Written-\nSynopsis:\n“1. At the outset it is submitted that the total land area was 4500 sq ft. (PB\n101), Ld. AO erroneously based on a total area

PITAMBER LAL SUNDERDAS RAJDEV,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 3(3), BHYOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raopitamber Lal Sunderdas Rajdev Ito 3(3) Sundervan Nursery, Bhopal Bhopal Indore Road, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Adfpr 4144Q Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .12.2023

section 148 as valid. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the assessee the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ National faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,92,300.00 and disallowing

PATIDAR BUILER PRIVATE LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed partly

92,730/- after making certain disallowances/additions.\nAggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and got part relief. Still\naggrieved, the assessee has come in next appeal before us.\n3. The grounds raised by assessee are as under:\n“ 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A)\nerred in confirming the addition

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023 AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Ground No. 3 to 5: 14. In these grounds, the revenue has challenged the CIT(A)’s action of deleting

MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. ACIT- (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023 AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Ground No. 3 to 5: 14. In these grounds, the revenue has challenged the CIT(A)’s action of deleting

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023 AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Ground No. 3 to 5: 14. In these grounds, the revenue has challenged the CIT(A)’s action of deleting

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

92,446/- was claimed on such loans. The details of expenses incurred towards those parties as alleged to have been covered under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act were asked for and further (ACIT vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd. perusal of the same it was found by the Ld. AO that the assessee paid interest to four of those

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

92,446/- was claimed on such loans. The details of expenses incurred towards those parties as alleged to have been covered under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act were asked for and further (ACIT vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd. perusal of the same it was found by the Ld. AO that the assessee paid interest to four of those

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

92,446/- was claimed on such loans. The details of expenses incurred towards those parties as alleged to have been covered under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act were asked for and further (ACIT vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd. perusal of the same it was found by the Ld. AO that the assessee paid interest to four of those

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)

92,862/- Amount disallowable under Rule-8D(2)(ii) A X B/C = Rs. 1,40,58,474/- Amount disallowable under Rule-8D(2)(iii) = 0.5% of the average value of Investment, income from which does not form part of the total income. = 0.5% of average