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:

TDS thereon. On perusal of these bills and invoices it was found that few of the bills on which TDS was deducted were paid much before the date of search. Therefore, these quantities cannot be termed as afterthought. Thus it is held that the AO was not justified in making an addition of 5685.92 gms of gold jewellery from

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)

undisclosed interest income. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making notional addition in the form of money found in locker during search amounting to Rs. 10,24,500/- as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. That the impugned order

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)

undisclosed interest income. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making notional addition in the form of money found in locker during search amounting to Rs. 10,24,500/- as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. That the impugned order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

undisclosed income. Any action on the contrary shall be viewed adversely." 14.3 Therefore, in absence of any credible evidence such confession has no evidentiary value. We further note that even on the merits an identical issue of unsecured loans from same set of lender companies has been considered by this Tribunal in case of case of ACIT vs. Shri Krishna

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

Appeal is allowed

undisclosed Income Disclosed under\nIncome Declaration Scheme Rules, 2016\n395\n28.5\nForm No. 1 under Income Declaration Scheme Rules, 2016\n396\n28.6\nFORM No. 3 under Income Declaration Scheme, 2016\n397-398\n28.7\nCopy of Challan Deposited under Income Declaration\nScheme Rules, 2016\n399-401\n28.8\nFORM No. 4 under Income Declaration Scheme Rules,\n402\n2016\n28.9\nCopy of Bank

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

income derived from seized material in group cases to its undisclosed income offered in search proceedings.” 67. At the outset, we note that the facts and issues narrated in the orders of the Revenue authorities in the year i.e. A.Y. 2009-10 are similar to the facts in the previous Asstt.Year 2008-09 which we have considered and decided

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

income derived from seized material in group cases to its undisclosed income offered in search proceedings.” 67. At the outset, we note that the facts and issues narrated in the orders of the Revenue authorities in the year i.e. A.Y. 2009-10 are similar to the facts in the previous Asstt.Year 2008-09 which we have considered and decided

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

income derived from seized material in group cases to its undisclosed income offered in search proceedings.” 67. At the outset, we note that the facts and issues narrated in the orders of the Revenue authorities in the year i.e. A.Y. 2009-10 are similar to the facts in the previous Asstt.Year 2008-09 which we have considered and decided

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which was not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. In. all these cases no assessments were pending on the date of search for these assessment years. No assessments were abated in terms of second proviso to section 153A

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which was not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. In. all these cases no assessments were pending on the date of search for these assessment years. No assessments were abated in terms of second proviso to section 153A

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS & TOLL HIGHWAYS (INDIA) LTD., MHOW

In the result, assessee’s ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Prakash Asphaltings & Toll Acit (Central)-1 Of Highway (India) Ltd., Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, Central-1, Prakash Asphaltings & Indore Toll Of Highway (India) बनाम/ Ltd., 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee)

undisclosed income in these seized documents is Rs. 1,22,19,659/- which is admitted by AIDPL in AY 2008-09 and order u/s 263 has been passed accordingly. 3. Considering the above facts, the addition of Rs.1,15,14,659/- was wrongly been made in the assessment order of PATH(I)Ltd which may kindly be deleted.” 4.2.1. From

M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOO HIGHWAY LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Prakash Asphaltings & Toll Acit (Central)-1 Of Highway (India) Ltd., Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, Central-1, Prakash Asphaltings & Indore Toll Of Highway (India) बनाम/ Ltd., 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee)

undisclosed income in these seized documents is Rs. 1,22,19,659/- which is admitted by AIDPL in AY 2008-09 and order u/s 263 has been passed accordingly. 3. Considering the above facts, the addition of Rs.1,15,14,659/- was wrongly been made in the assessment order of PATH(I)Ltd which may kindly be deleted.” 4.2.1. From

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. DILIP KUMAR MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN HUF, INDORE

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Dilip Kumar Mahendra Acit (Central)-1, Vs. Kumar Jain, 6, Near Jagdale School, Indore Janki Nagar, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaehd1394J Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr.Dr Appellant By Shri Mahesh Agrawal, Adv. Date Of Hearing 05.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement .02.2021 O R D E R

undisclosed investment u/s 69 of the Act. It is not in dispute that no enquiry whatsoever was made by the Ld. A.O 6 Dilip Kumar Mahendra Kumar with the concerns/name of persons appearing in the seized document. 10. We further observe that Ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts of the case as well as referring to the statements given

ACIT (CENTRAL) , UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S GLOBUS HOUSING PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central) M/S. Globus Housing Pvt. Ltd. 176, Zone-Ii, First Floor, M.P. Ujjain Vs. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Aaecg 0623 J Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Yash Kukreja, Ars Date Of Hearing 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

undisclosed sources merely on the failure of the sub-creditors to prove their creditworthiness. [Para 20] 7.8 Reference can usefully be made to the following case laws as well :- (1) The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court vide its judgment and order dated 15.4.2005 in the case of CIT v. Jauharimal Goel [2005] 147 taxman 448 (All.) has held as under

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

TDS on commission expenditure at Rs.3,12,513/- and disallowance of interest expenses at Rs.3,16,358/-. Income assessed at Rs.29,14,01,880/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging all the additions except for disallowance of commission expenses u/s 40A(1)(a) of the Act and partly succeeded. 31. Now the assessee is in appeal before

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

TDS on commission expenditure at Rs.3,12,513/- and disallowance of interest expenses at Rs.3,16,358/-. Income assessed at Rs.29,14,01,880/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging all the additions except for disallowance of commission expenses u/s 40A(1)(a) of the Act and partly succeeded. 31. Now the assessee is in appeal before

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

TDS on commission expenditure at Rs.3,12,513/- and disallowance of interest expenses at Rs.3,16,358/-. Income assessed at Rs.29,14,01,880/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging all the additions except for disallowance of commission expenses u/s 40A(1)(a) of the Act and partly succeeded. 31. Now the assessee is in appeal before

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

TDS on commission expenditure at Rs.3,12,513/- and disallowance of interest expenses at Rs.3,16,358/-. Income assessed at Rs.29,14,01,880/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging all the additions except for disallowance of commission expenses u/s 40A(1)(a) of the Act and partly succeeded. 31. Now the assessee is in appeal before

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

undisclosed income. Sanjay Lunawat ITA No.396/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.32/Ind/2018 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A) who called for the remand report and after having gone through the facts/circumstances, material and submissions thereof deleted the addition. The Operative part/findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A) are reproduced hereunder: “..........The appellant during