SARTHAK REAL BUILT PVT. LTD, ,INDORE vs. DY, CIT,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

reassessment notice was liable to be quashed. 14. We also find that the Ld. AO mentioned about section 40A(3) in the reasons

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

reassessment notice was liable to be quashed. 14. We also find that the Ld. AO mentioned about section 40A(3) in the reasons

DEEYA AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BURHANPUR vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshideeya Agrotech Private Ito Burhanpur बनाम/ Limited, Vs. 203, Bahadarpur Road, Burhanpur 450331, Madhya Pradesh, Indore (Pan:Aadcd9603J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pankaj Mogra, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

40A(3). Appellant had not produced any bills or transport receipts which could be right prove the contention of appellant. Therefore, appellant has failed to disprove the findings of A.O. in lacks of the substantiate documents. 5.3 Further, it is pertinent to state that to decide this appeal in timely manner several notices/ communications through ITBA portal were sent

PRADEEP KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. CIT-I INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Pradeep Khandelwal, Pr. Cit (1), बनाम/ 196,Bajrang Nagar, Indore. Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Akppk2676R Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023

40A(3) only, how can the order of re-assessment be said to be erroneous qua the exemption u/s 54/54F? We raised this query to Ld. DR. The Ld. DR could not submit any convincing reply though he dutifully relied upon impugned revision-order. 6. In our considered understanding, when the issue of exemption u/s 54/54F was never a part

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

40A (3)- Whether on facts, impugned revisional order did not require any interference- Held, yes [Para-16] [ In favour of revenue] 4.0 Therefore, in view of the above discussion I am of the considered opinion that the order dated: 06.01.2016 for A.Y. 2013-14 is erroneous in so far as it is also prejudicial to the interest of revenue

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 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

PRASAM RAKESH CHOUDHARY,GIRNAR SOCIETY, BAPURAO GALLI, ITWARI, NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

section 143(3) on 26-3-03 at. a total income of Rs. 24,42,91,550/-. On perusal of the assessment records, it is seen from Clause 17(i) of the Tax Audit Report that Rs.23,70,306/- being liabilities provided for payment of gratuity, was provided for during the year. This provision is not allowable u/s 40A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHOPOAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RASHTRIYA TAKNIKI SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN EVAM ANUNSANDHAN SANSTHAN, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

section 143(3) on 26-3-03 at. a total income of Rs. 24,42,91,550/-. On perusal of the assessment records, it is seen from Clause 17(i) of the Tax Audit Report that Rs.23,70,306/- being liabilities provided for payment of gratuity, was provided for during the year. This provision is not allowable u/s 40A

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