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

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

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,732/- 18 3. Shri Utpal Goyal 1,31,868/- 18 4. Shri Narendra Barta 8,58,336/- 16 Total 45,65,847/- 5. According to the Ld. AO, such excess interest to the persons covered under Section 40A

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,732/- 18 3. Shri Utpal Goyal 1,31,868/- 18 4. Shri Narendra Barta 8,58,336/- 16 Total 45,65,847/- 5. According to the Ld. AO, such excess interest to the persons covered under Section 40A

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,732/- 18 3. Shri Utpal Goyal 1,31,868/- 18 4. Shri Narendra Barta 8,58,336/- 16 Total 45,65,847/- 5. According to the Ld. AO, such excess interest to the persons covered under Section 40A

THE ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. M/S. SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by the Revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13

40A(3) of the Act at Rs.4,26,000/- , addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of bogus cash credit introduced in the books of account at Rs.2,76,42,000/- and addition of bogus creditors at Rs.83,05,400/- . Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and succeeded. 3. Now the revenue is in appeal before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S. IDEAL ASHIYANA PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit-2(1) M/S Ideal Ashiyana Indore Private Ltd., Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aadci 0029 F Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Final Hearing 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.12.2022

section 40A(3) by ignoring the findings of Assessing Officer in the assessment order.” 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length on 15.09.2022 and the case was adjourned to 21.09.2022 for final hearing. On 21.09.2022, the case was again adjourned to 26.09.2022 at the request of Ld. DR. On 26.09.2022, none appeared on behalf of revenue

RECONNECT ENERGY SOLUTION P LT,BENGALURU vs. THE DCIT 4(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoreconnect Energy Solution Ltd. Dcit 1(4) No.22, Vk Kalyani, 7Th Floor Indore Vs. Sankey Road, Bengaluru (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aafcr 0074 H Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2023

40a ia..” Page 1 of 12 Reconnect Energy solution P. Ltd. Page 2 of 12 2. Ground no.1 is regarding the addition made u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of providing service to the Renewable Energy entities. The assessee filed its return of income on 16.10.2016 declaring loss of Rs.40

RAINA GARG,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Raina Garg, Ito-4(1), Prop. M/S. Garg Trading Bhopal Company, बनाम/ Purana Kabadkhana, Vs. Jumerati, Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aawpg4732F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.02.2024

40A(2) read with section 2(41) and not all 6 persons for which the AO has made disallowance. The order of CIT(A) in para no. 4.1.1 re-produced above does not decide the assessee’s submission judicially. After taking into account Page 8 of 18 Raina Garg, Bhopal ITA No. 334/Ind/2023 – AY 2015-16 entire conspectus

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

Appeal is allowed partly

sections": [ "40A(3)", "37", "68", "143(3)", "131", "46A" ], "issues": "Whether the disallowances and additions made by the AO and upheld

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

68. The judgements are respectfully distinguished as it has clearly been held in the preceding discussion that further enquiries are required to be made to ascertain the creditworthiness and genuineness of the companies. M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. The assessee has also submitted that the loans have been repaid through proper banking channel. The submission has no relevance

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

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

section 143(3) on 30.03.2016, making addition on various grounds. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A) who vide the year-wise impuged orders deleted part of the 3 IT(SS)A No.83,84,86,87,90,91,109,110 & ITA, No.922 &923/Ind/2019 AG8 Ventures Ltd. additions. Against the orders of ld CIT(A) both

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

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

section 143(3) on 30.03.2016, making addition on various grounds. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A) who vide the year-wise impuged orders deleted part of the 3 IT(SS)A No.83,84,86,87,90,91,109,110 & ITA, No.922 &923/Ind/2019 AG8 Ventures Ltd. additions. Against the orders of ld CIT(A) both

SHRI PRADEEP MAHESHWARI HUF,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

68 of the Act by both the lower authorities. As the issues raised are common these three appeals were heard together and being disposed off by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 4. For the purpose of adjudication we will take up the facts of Smt. Annapurna Maheshwari for Assessment Year 2008-09 relating to I.T.A. No.315/Ind/2012

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

68 of the Act by both the lower authorities. As the issues raised are common these three appeals were heard together and being disposed off by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 4. For the purpose of adjudication we will take up the facts of Smt. Annapurna Maheshwari for Assessment Year 2008-09 relating to I.T.A. No.315/Ind/2012

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

68 of the Act by both the lower authorities. As the issues raised are common these three appeals were heard together and being disposed off by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 4. For the purpose of adjudication we will take up the facts of Smt. Annapurna Maheshwari for Assessment Year 2008-09 relating to I.T.A. No.315/Ind/2012

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

40a(ia) of Rs.5,21,63,633/-” 11. The ld. CIT-DR submitted that the ld. First appellate authority has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act by overlooking the findings of the AO. The ld. CIT-DR further submitted that the the Ld. CIT(A) has also erred

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

40a(ia) of Rs.5,21,63,633/-” 11. The ld. CIT-DR submitted that the ld. First appellate authority has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act by overlooking the findings of the AO. The ld. CIT-DR further submitted that the the Ld. CIT(A) has also erred