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

section 194C(7). Thus, we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere with the findings of the ld.CIT(A) and, thus, we uphold the same. Accordingly, grounds No. 4 and 5 of the Revenue are also dismissed. CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 17. Ground No.6 of the Revenue reads as under:- “6. On the facts and circumstances

JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 194C disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is attracted ? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made for unexplained cash credits u/s 68

THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE vs. JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 194C disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is attracted ? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made for unexplained cash credits u/s 68

M/S. ARIHANT CHERITABLE TRUST,INDORE vs. THE ITO (TDS)-1, INDORE

In the result, we find no force in the ground of the Revenue, hence dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

194C of the Act and not under the section 194 J. Effective ground of appeal is decided in favour of the assessee.” [Emphasis Supplied] Arihand Charitable Trust Indore /ITANo.909/2019 1.9.5] The Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai Bench ‘D’ in the case of M/s Ruby Macons Ltd vs DCIT, Mumbai [ITA No. 4056/Mum/2008] has categorically held that: [Page No. 68

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 139 etc., or by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. In the present case, the question of making of a return is not in issue and the only question is with regard to the second portion of the proviso

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 139 etc., or by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. In the present case, the question of making of a return is not in issue and the only question is with regard to the second portion of the proviso

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 139 etc., or by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. In the present case, the question of making of a return is not in issue and the only question is with regard to the second portion of the proviso

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RATLAM vs. SHRI SURESH CHAND JAIN, MEGHNAGAR DIST. JHABUA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & Acit 5(1) Shri Suresh Chand Jain Indore 99, Thandla Road, Vs. Meghnagar,Jhabua (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan:Aezpj 2697F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .09.2023

section 194C are not applicable. Accordingly we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) qua this issue. 9. Ground no.4 is regarding the disallowance of interest from loan to relatives. 9.1 Ld. DR has submitted that the assesse has given interest free loan/advances of Rs.76,93,211/- to relatives

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RATLAM, RATLAM vs. SHRI SURESH CHAND JAIN, JHABUA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & Acit 5(1) Shri Suresh Chand Jain Indore 99, Thandla Road, Vs. Meghnagar,Jhabua (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan:Aezpj 2697F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .09.2023

section 194C are not applicable. Accordingly we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) qua this issue. 9. Ground no.4 is regarding the disallowance of interest from loan to relatives. 9.1 Ld. DR has submitted that the assesse has given interest free loan/advances of Rs.76,93,211/- to relatives

THE ITO-1, KHANDWA vs. M/S. R S P REAL ESTATE, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Ito-1, M/S. Rsp Real Estate, बनाम/ Khandwa Ramkrishnaganj, Khandwa Vs. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aapfr1699K Assessee By Shri S.N.Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2023

194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and had also submitted the TDS Return well within time limit and payments were also made periodically only through proper banking channels. The appellant had maintained proper books of accounts which got audited u/s 44AB and the case of the appellant was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income

SHYAM SUNDER VERMA ,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT -2, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

194C and 194J as per section 26AS are more than the receipts shown in ITR I.T.A No. 993/Ind/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 3 Shri Shyam Sunder Verma vs. Pr. CIT (c) Tax credit claimed in ITR is less than tax credits available in 26AS (d) Mismatch in sales turnover reported in audited report and ITR 4. During

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. RANBIR SINGH, INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2017-18 Acit-1(1) Ranbir Singh Indore 1401,Vijay Nagar Scheme No. 114, बनाम/ Part-1 Vs. Indore (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Bufps2307N Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Vijay Bansal, Ar Date Of Hearing 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.06.2025

194C of the Act has been duly deducted by 2 out of the 3 Debtors viz. Dilip Buildcon Ltd and Gayatri Projects Ltd. The Ld. AO in his remand report has commented that no adverse inference can be drawn from these documentary evidences. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant had transferred his personal assets in the beginning

MANJEET SINGH SALUJA ,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

194C and 194J (as per 26AS) are more than the receipts shown in ITR. Accordingly, notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 31.08.2015 and duly served upon the assessee. In response to the above notices the assessee himself attended from time to time and filed the details. The Assessing Officer made observations

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 (1), INDORE vs. SHRI MUKESH AGRAWAL, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2005-06

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,39,798/- made by the AO in respect of purchase of scrap without appreciating the factual position that the assessee has not submitted any purchase bill