RAKESH BHOJANI,SIYAGANJ INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -4(1), INDORE, CGO COMPLEX

Appeal is allowed

Section 68 to\nthe satisfaction of the Assessing Officer and subsequently also in the\nappellate proceedings. The mere mention the financials of the investor was\nnot sufficient to discharge the onus u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act. Hence, the\nonus to establish the creditworthiness of the investor companies was not\ndischarged and the entire transaction was bogus and lacked

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

46A and failed to controvert the documents furnished by the assessee on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee filed ample documentary evidences and discharged the primary onus cast upon it under section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- made by the Ld. AO under Section

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

46A and failed to controvert the documents furnished by the assessee on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee filed ample documentary evidences and discharged the primary onus cast upon it under section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- made by the Ld. AO under Section

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

46A and failed to controvert the documents furnished by the assessee on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee filed ample documentary evidences and discharged the primary onus cast upon it under section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- made by the Ld. AO under Section

THE ACIT (CENTRAL) II, BHOPAL vs. M/S SIGNATURE BUILDERS, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 68 and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- made by Ld. AO. We do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold the action of Ld. CIT(A). 13. In view of these findings, we are of the view that

ACIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LTD., BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Som Distilleries & Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Breweries Limited, 1(1), Vs. Som House, Bhopal. 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay:2014-15 Acit (Central)-1, Som Distilleries & बनाम/ Bhopal Breweries Limited, Vs. Som House, 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

TDS. During assessment- proceeding, the assessee filed a declaration/certificate in Form No. 26A dated 26.03.2016 to claim the benefit of first proviso to section 201(1) read with Rule 31ACB. The AO has accepted Form No. 26A filed by assessee and given benefit of first proviso to section 201(1). But, on perusal of Form No. 26A, the AO found

SOM DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Som Distilleries & Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Breweries Limited, 1(1), Vs. Som House, Bhopal. 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay:2014-15 Acit (Central)-1, Som Distilleries & बनाम/ Bhopal Breweries Limited, Vs. Som House, 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

TDS. During assessment- proceeding, the assessee filed a declaration/certificate in Form No. 26A dated 26.03.2016 to claim the benefit of first proviso to section 201(1) read with Rule 31ACB. The AO has accepted Form No. 26A filed by assessee and given benefit of first proviso to section 201(1). But, on perusal of Form No. 26A, the AO found

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 115BBE shall apply on the above income. Therefore, appeal on this ground is dismissed.” 3.5.3. In view of the above discussion, addition made by the Ld AO amounting to Rs. 10,24,500/-, in the hands of appellant, is confirmed. Therefore, appeal on this ground is dismissed. ” 25. Before us, Ld. AR for assessee made following submissions to oppose

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 115BBE shall apply on the above income. Therefore, appeal on this ground is dismissed.” 3.5.3. In view of the above discussion, addition made by the Ld AO amounting to Rs. 10,24,500/-, in the hands of appellant, is confirmed. Therefore, appeal on this ground is dismissed. ” 25. Before us, Ld. AR for assessee made following submissions to oppose

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAJEEV AJMERA, INDORE

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

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-3(1) Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Co No.23/Ind/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.51/Ind/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Dcit-3(1) Indore Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Assessee By Shri Mahendra Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2022 आदेश/ O R D E R

section 14A was clearly applicable on assessee's investment in shares and mutual fund wherefrom income was exempt.” Page 2 of 17 Shri Rajeev Ajmera ITA No.51/Ind/2018& CO.No.23/Ind/2018 Assessment year 2010-11 Ground No. 1: 5. In this Ground, the issue involved is the deduction of commission- expenditure of Rs. 1,74,50,000/- claimed by the assessee

JAGDISH SOLANKI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER JHABUA, JHABUA

Appeal is dismissed

46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962. The CIT(A) rejected assessee's legal claim but, however, remanded matter to AO for re-adjudication of merit after examining the evidences filed by assessee. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in next appeal before us.\n3. The grounds raised by assessee are as under:\nPage 2 of 23\nITA No. 169/Ind/2025

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

46A. On a careful consideration of the appeal-order of Ld. CIT(A), we observe that the Ld. CIT(A) has taken into account the evidences/documents filed by assessee and having regard to the nature of business carried on by assessee, came to a conclusion that the three ingredients of section 68 stood successfully proved by assessee. The observations

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

TDS deductions etc.]. Similarly, no details provided\nfor “sales promotions expenses” [Rs.1,82,82,000/- rightly\ndisallowed for want of any material information, documents\netc].\n3.10 with regard to addition of Rs.7,22,60,000/- the Ld. DR has\nrelied upon para 11,11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.4 & 11.5 of the\n“Impugned Assessment Order” which is reproduced

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

46A.” 40. Short facts in this regard are that during the search at 263, Orbit Mall Indore, a loose paper “page no.46 of LPS-1/1/1 was seized. It contained certain entries with regard to certain transactions pertained to some expenditure. The details of which were given in the assessment order. The AO required the assessee to explain the nature

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

46A.” 40. Short facts in this regard are that during the search at 263, Orbit Mall Indore, a loose paper “page no.46 of LPS-1/1/1 was seized. It contained certain entries with regard to certain transactions pertained to some expenditure. The details of which were given in the assessment order. The AO required the assessee to explain the nature

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

46A.” 40. Short facts in this regard are that during the search at 263, Orbit Mall Indore, a loose paper “page no.46 of LPS-1/1/1 was seized. It contained certain entries with regard to certain transactions pertained to some expenditure. The details of which were given in the assessment order. The AO required the assessee to explain the nature

SOM DISTILLERIES PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(3), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

46A as being claimed by revenue. So far as the decision of Jansampark Advertising (supra) is concerned, that is not applicable to assessee’s case as rightly submitted by Ld. AR. Without repeating Ld. AR’s submissions which we have already narrated in preceding para, we only suffice to say that we agree with Ld. AR that the said decision

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL , BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

46A as being claimed by revenue. So far as the decision of Jansampark Advertising (supra) is concerned, that is not applicable to assessee’s case as rightly submitted by Ld. AR. Without repeating Ld. AR’s submissions which we have already narrated in preceding para, we only suffice to say that we agree with Ld. AR that the said decision