SUMATI KUMAR KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

40A(3) Infrastructure 8.Telescoping of Sumati Kumar 2012-13 & (n/a) Ground No.11 additions Kasliwal and 2013-14 consequential Sumati Kumar sustained vis-à- Pumarth issue Kasliwal and vis income Infrastructure Ground No.8 surrendered in Pumarth Infrastructure On various issues challenged by the assessee(s) and revenue in these bunch of appeals and cross objection, Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee

M/S NISHANT FINANCE PVT.LTD,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL (I), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

40A(3) Infrastructure 8.Telescoping of Sumati Kumar 2012-13 & (n/a) Ground No.11 additions Kasliwal and 2013-14 consequential Sumati Kumar sustained vis-à- Pumarth issue Kasliwal and vis income Infrastructure Ground No.8 surrendered in Pumarth Infrastructure On various issues challenged by the assessee(s) and revenue in these bunch of appeals and cross objection, Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD.,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

40A(3) Infrastructure 8.Telescoping of Sumati Kumar 2012-13 & (n/a) Ground No.11 additions Kasliwal and 2013-14 consequential Sumati Kumar sustained vis-à- Pumarth issue Kasliwal and vis income Infrastructure Ground No.8 surrendered in Pumarth Infrastructure On various issues challenged by the assessee(s) and revenue in these bunch of appeals and cross objection, Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee

PARTH KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (I), INDORE , INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

40A(3) Infrastructure 8.Telescoping of Sumati Kumar 2012-13 & (n/a) Ground No.11 additions Kasliwal and 2013-14 consequential Sumati Kumar sustained vis-à- Pumarth issue Kasliwal and vis income Infrastructure Ground No.8 surrendered in Pumarth Infrastructure On various issues challenged by the assessee(s) and revenue in these bunch of appeals and cross objection, Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee

SHRIMATI SHARDA KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (I), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

40A(3) Infrastructure 8.Telescoping of Sumati Kumar 2012-13 & (n/a) Ground No.11 additions Kasliwal and 2013-14 consequential Sumati Kumar sustained vis-à- Pumarth issue Kasliwal and vis income Infrastructure Ground No.8 surrendered in Pumarth Infrastructure On various issues challenged by the assessee(s) and revenue in these bunch of appeals and cross objection, Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee

DYPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. , INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

40A(3) Infrastructure 8.Telescoping of Sumati Kumar 2012-13 & (n/a) Ground No.11 additions Kasliwal and 2013-14 consequential Sumati Kumar sustained vis-à- Pumarth issue Kasliwal and vis income Infrastructure Ground No.8 surrendered in Pumarth Infrastructure On various issues challenged by the assessee(s) and revenue in these bunch of appeals and cross objection, Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee

MANOJ KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (1), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

40A(3) Infrastructure 8.Telescoping of Sumati Kumar 2012-13 & (n/a) Ground No.11 additions Kasliwal and 2013-14 consequential Sumati Kumar sustained vis-à- Pumarth issue Kasliwal and vis income Infrastructure Ground No.8 surrendered in Pumarth Infrastructure On various issues challenged by the assessee(s) and revenue in these bunch of appeals and cross objection, Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee

THE ACIT, CICLE -4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. NAROTTAMDAS ENTERPRISES PODDAR PLAZA, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

b) of the Act, hence, reassessment based on opinion of audit party is invalid. Further, the reopening of assessment has not been found permissible within four corners of law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India, 320 ITR 561. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -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

reassessment order. The only objection of the AO for making the impugned disallowance was non compliance of section 194C(7) of the Act. The appellant has submitted that section 194C(7) of the Act prescribes merely a procedural requirement requiring mechanical compliance, non compliance of which cannot trigger disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The disallowance

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

reassessment order. The only objection of the AO for making the impugned disallowance was non compliance of section 194C(7) of the Act. The appellant has submitted that section 194C(7) of the Act prescribes merely a procedural requirement requiring mechanical compliance, non compliance of which cannot trigger disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The disallowance

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

reassessment order. The only objection of the AO for making the impugned disallowance was non compliance of section 194C(7) of the Act. The appellant has submitted that section 194C(7) of the Act prescribes merely a procedural requirement requiring mechanical compliance, non compliance of which cannot trigger disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The disallowance

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

40A(3) and Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be said to be justified in view of the observations made hereinabove. Further, we find that the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) have not been controverted by the Ld.CIT-DR by bringing any contrary material on record. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the findings

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

40A(3) and Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be said to be justified in view of the observations made hereinabove. Further, we find that the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) have not been controverted by the Ld.CIT-DR by bringing any contrary material on record. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the findings

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

40A(3) and Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be said to be justified in view of the observations made hereinabove. Further, we find that the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) have not been controverted by the Ld.CIT-DR by bringing any contrary material on record. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the findings

THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. SANWARIA AGRO OILS LIMITED, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

40A(2) treating the same as excessive and unreasonable. On appeal, considering the difference between the prevailing market rate and the claim of the assessee, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered Rs. 5 lacs as excessive and the disallowance was made accordingly and deleted the disallowance of Rs.10 lacs which is under challenge before us. The prevailing rate

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment order. We are unable to see any ambiguity perversity for any other valid reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) based on the orders of ITAT Kolkata Bench BLB Cable and Conductors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and ACIT vs GRD Commodities Ltd. (supra). It is pertinent to mention that the appeal of the revenue against

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment order. We are unable to see any ambiguity perversity for any other valid reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) based on the orders of ITAT Kolkata Bench BLB Cable and Conductors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and ACIT vs GRD Commodities Ltd. (supra). It is pertinent to mention that the appeal of the revenue against

M/S. GANPAT PANNALAL,HARDA vs. ITO-1 HARDA, HARDA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2007-08

40A(2) (PB 7 (Back), para 18). Annexure - B. (PB 11) e.Explanation filed before AO on 23.03.2011. (PB 54-55) It is pertinent to note that in original assessment proceedings, the fact that no salary was given to partners and details of deduction claimed by assessee u/s 80IB(l1A) was on record. The explanation filed before