ITO v. Jamanadas Muljibhai

The ACIT Central-Ujjain, Ujjain vs. M/S Italian Edibles P Ltd, Indore

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central) M/S. Italian Edibles Pvt. Ujjain Ltd. Vs. Udhyog Nagar, Palda Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee /Respondent) Pan: Aacci 2746N Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb Ars Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023

…ion 69 of the Act.” (h) M/s SurekhJewellers vs DCIT dated 12.06.2016. (i) M/s Silver Palace vs DCIT ITA No 893/PUNE/2016 dated 29.06.2018 (ITAT Pune) (j) M/s Solanki Jewellers vs DCIT ITA No 858/PN/2016 dated 18.11.2016. (k) ITO vs Jmandas Muljibahai (2006) 99 TTJ 197 (ITAT Rajkot). (l) M/s Dev Raj Hi Tech Machines vs DCIT ITA No 326 of 2014 dated 07.10.2015 (ITAT Amritsar) (a)(ii) From the above discussion and in view of the plethora of judgments on this settled issue, I am of the considered view that section 69 was clearly not applicable in the case of appellant and the suppressed income found by way of exc…

Shri Premdeep Rajput, Indore vs. The Central Circle Ujjain, Ujjain

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Premdeep Rajput, Acit, 47-B, Sector A, Central Circle, बनाम/ Industrial Estate, Ujjain Vs. Sanwer Road, Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abvpr8534N Assessee By Shri Sushil Jethani & Shri V.K. Bhandari, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2023

…” (h) M/s SurekhJewellers vs DCIT ITA No 18/PN/2016 dated 12.06.2016. (i) M/s Silver Palace vs DCIT ITA No 893/PUNE/2016 dated 29.06.2018 (ITAT Pune) (j) M/s Solanki Jewellers vs DCIT ITA No 858/PN/2016 dated 18.11.2016. (k) ITO vs Jmandas Muljibahai (2006) 99 TTJ 197 (ITAT Rajkot). (l) M/s Dev Raj Hi Tech Machines vs DCIT ITA No 326 of 2014 dated 07.10.2015 (ITAT Amritsar) (a)(ii) From the above discussion and in view of the plethora of judgments on this settled issue, I am of the considered view that section 69 was clearly not applicable in the case of appellant and the suppressed income found by way of exc…

Brij Mohan Das Devi Prasad, Sehore vs. The ACIT Central Circle -2 Bhopal, Bhopal

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S.Brij Mohandas Devi Acit/Dcit, Prasad, Central Circle 2, बनाम/ House No. 62, Ward No.18, Bhopal Station Road, Vs. Sehore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aadfb3526F Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal, Ca & Shri Mahesh Agrawal, Ca, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

…(i) M/s Silver Palace vs DCIT ITA No 893/PUNE/2016 dated 29.06.2018 (ITAT Pune) (j) M/s Solanki Jewellers vs DCIT ITA No 858/PN/2016 dated 18.11.2016. Page 21 of 24 M/s.Brij Mohandas Devi Prasad Assessment year 2018-19 (k) ITO vs Jmandas Muljibahai (2006) 99 TTJ 197 (ITAT Rajkot). (l) M/s Dev Raj Hi Tech Machines vs DCIT ITA No 326 of 2014 dated 07.10.2015 (ITAT Amritsar) (a)(ii) From the above discussion and in view of the plethora of judgments on this settled issue, I am of the considered view that section 69 was clearly not applicable in the case of appellant and the suppressed income found by way of exc…

M/S Nikhil Estate P Ltd, Indore vs. The ACIT Central Circle (3) Indore, Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Nikhil Estate Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Central)-3 M-102, Mezzanine, Floor, Indore Dhan Trident, P. No.B-3 Pu- Vs. 4, Sch. No.54, Vijay Nagar Square, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 8056 D Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.06.2023

….” (h) M/s Surekh Jewellers vs DCIT ITA No 18/PN/2016 dated 12.06.2016. (i) M/s Silver Palace vs DCIT ITA No 893/PUNE/2016 dated 29.06.2018 (ITAT Pune) (j) M/s Solanki Jewellers vs DCIT ITA No 858/PN/2016 dated 18.11.2016. (k) ITO vs Jmandas Muljibahai (2006) 99 TTJ 197 (ITAT Rajkot). (l) M/s Dev Raj Hi Tech Machines vs DCIT ITA No 326 of 2014 dated 07.10.2015 (ITAT Amritsar) (a)(ii) From the above discussion and in view of the plethora of judgments on this settled issue, I am of the considered view that section 69 was clearly not applicable in the case of appellant and the suppressed income found by way of exces…

M/S Supremo India Ltd, Indore vs. The Ait Central 3, Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

….” (h) M/s Surekh Jewellers vs DCIT ITA No 18/PN/2016 dated 12.06.2016. (i) M/s Silver Palace vs DCIT ITA No 893/PUNE/2016 dated 29.06.2018 (ITAT Pune) (j) M/s Solanki Jewellers vs DCIT ITA No 858/PN/2016 dated 18.11.2016. (k) ITO vs Jmandas Muljibahai (2006) 99 TTJ 197 (ITAT Rajkot). (l) M/s Dev Raj Hi Tech Machines vs DCIT ITA No 326 of 2014 dated 07.10.2015 (ITAT Amritsar) (a)(ii) From the above discussion and in view of the plethora of judgments on this settled issue, I am of the considered view that section 69 was clearly not applicable in the case of appellant and the suppressed income found by way of exces…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat vs. M/S. D.Khushalbhai Jewellers, Surat

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

…d that fundamental principle of accountancy is that the figure of closing stock of earlier years has to form the opening stock of next accounting year. The assessee also relied upon the decision of Rajkot Bench of Tribunal in ITO Vs Jamanadas Muljibhai (2006) 99 TTJ 197 (Rajkot), Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs. S.K. Srigiri & Bros (2008) 171 Taxman 264 (Kar.). 14. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.K.J. Builders & Contractors (P) Ltd. (supra) held that once the assessee’s valuation of undisclosed stock for A.Y. 2012-13 is changed due to addition by the Assessing Of…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir 1(3), Surat vs. M/S. D.Khushalbhai Jewellers, Surat

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

…d that fundamental principle of accountancy is that the figure of closing stock of earlier years has to form the opening stock of next accounting year. The assessee also relied upon the decision of Rajkot Bench of Tribunal in ITO Vs Jamanadas Muljibhai (2006) 99 TTJ 197 (Rajkot), Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs. S.K. Srigiri & Bros (2008) 171 Taxman 264 (Kar.). 14. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.K.J. Builders & Contractors (P) Ltd. (supra) held that once the assessee’s valuation of undisclosed stock for A.Y. 2012-13 is changed due to addition by the Assessing Of…

Anjani Infra, Surat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Anjani Infra Dy. Commissioner Of Block No. 142, Fp No.47, T.P. Income Tax, Vs Scheme No. 27, Shangrila Central Circle-2, Heights, Moje Villge, Kosad, Surat-395001 Pan : Aawfa 0376 M Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

…n following decision of Tribunal:-  DCIT, Cir-3 Surat vs. Sun Corporation ITA No.567/Ahd/2012  DCIT, Cir-3 Surat vs. Jagdamba Corporation in ITA No.1935/Ahd/2012  DCIT, Cir-3, Surat v. Suyog Corpoatin ITA No.568/Ahd/2012  ITO vs. Jamnadas Muljibhai [2006] 99 TTJ 197 (Rajkot),  My Home Developers v. ITO [2015] 155 ITD 335 (Ahmedabad-Trib) 4. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. The Ld. DR for the revenue further 3 Anjar Infar Surat submits that while recording the statement the assessee has not claimed any expenses against such unac…