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 (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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M/S. ALANKAR JEWELLWER,VIDISHA vs. THE ACIT- II, VIDISHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessees in

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2016-17 M/S. Alankar Jewellers Acit-Ii Nikasha Road, Vidisha Bhopal बनाम/ Vidisha Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aavfa1527D It(Ss)A No.205/Ind/2019 Assessment Year:2016-17 Acit-Ii M/S. Alankar Jewellers Bhopal Nikasha Road, Vidisha बनाम/ Vidisha Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aavfa1527D Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Respondent By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad:

46A has allowed the appeal giving the complete reasoning. Alankar Jewellers ITANo.838/Ind/2019& IT(SS)No.205/Ind/2019 45. We further observe that Ld. CIT(A) after examining the documentary evidences filed by the assessee has extensively dealt with the facts of the case and deleted the impugned addition observing as follows: “5.6 Ground No.6 for A.Y. 2016-17:- Through this ground

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

In the result ground no.2 raised by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit(Central)-1 Surya Infraventures Pvt. Indore Ltd. Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Appellant) Pan: Aadca 4235 D Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Bhavesh Agrawal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 01.12.2022

TDS out of the impugned expenditure which is also a fact on record. Additionally, Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee has declared a net profit of Rs. 3,35,98,234/- on the turnover of Rs. 37,56,25,467/- giving N.P. rate of 8.94%. which is much higher than 5% net profit rate accepted by ITAT, Indore

THE CIT-I, INDORE vs. M/S MAN DEVELOPMENTS, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit-Central-2 M/S Man Development, Indore 304, Vishal Astra, बनाम/ Vijay Nagar Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aakfm 2713 N Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Assessee By Shri S.C. Padliya, Ar Date Of Hearing 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.05.2023

TDS out of interest and closing balance. Replying upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. N. Tarika Properties Investment (2014) 387 (SC) and PCIT Vs. NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019), the AO held that supply of PAN data cannot be treated as sufficient disclosure. The AO also relied upon some more decisions as mentioned

HUSAIN KOHAWALA,KUKSHI DISTT. DHAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF APPEAL, NFAC

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanihusain Kohawala, Cit (A), Saifiya Marg Bohra Mohalla, Nfac, Near Macchi Darwaza, Delhi Kukshi, Vs. Dhar (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bkrpk6392P Assessee By Shri Parag Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.10.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm:

46A of IT Rules, 1962. The CIT(A) after considering the Form 2 Hussain Kohawala No.26AS as well as other details and records filed by the assessee including bank account statement has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of the cash deposited in the two bank accounts of the assessee with State Bank of India however