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:

investment in gold of the family members/concerns which was also reported in the wealth tax return have been merged in the stock in hand of the firm for which no accounting entry has been made in the books of account. Person wise details' of gold ornament aggregating to 10987.35 gram so included in the stock were also mentioned

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

unexplained investment in certain property at Simrol. In nutshell, the undisclosed income of Rs.14,00,00,000/- was admitted by me as having been derived from the source of business whereas the remaining undisclosed income of Rs.1,89,76,375/- was admitted by me as having been derived from income from other sources, 6. That, during the course of recording

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RATLAM vs. SHRI SURESH CHAND JAIN, MEGHNAGAR DIST. JHABUA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & Acit 5(1) Shri Suresh Chand Jain Indore 99, Thandla Road, Vs. Meghnagar,Jhabua (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan:Aezpj 2697F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .09.2023

TDS on the payment made on account of repairs and maintenance. Therefore, the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.23,38,690/- is deleted. Therefore, the appeal on these grounds is Allowed.” 8.1 Thus, it is clear that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted this addition on the ground that the payment made by the assesse for repair

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RATLAM, RATLAM vs. SHRI SURESH CHAND JAIN, JHABUA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & Acit 5(1) Shri Suresh Chand Jain Indore 99, Thandla Road, Vs. Meghnagar,Jhabua (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan:Aezpj 2697F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .09.2023

TDS on the payment made on account of repairs and maintenance. Therefore, the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.23,38,690/- is deleted. Therefore, the appeal on these grounds is Allowed.” 8.1 Thus, it is clear that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted this addition on the ground that the payment made by the assesse for repair

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

unexplained investments u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE and Rs. 2,03,610/- on account of unaccounted interest income. During the course of search in the case of MRJ Group on 23.03.2018, various documents pertaining to the appellant was found and seized. The AO on perusal of these documents transpired out that the assessee during FY 2010-11 has given cash loans

ACIT CENTTRAL -2 INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KALYAN TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, INDORE

Accordingly ground no. 2 of the cross objection stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit Central-2, M/S Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Indore Ltd., Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aacck1840M

investment or cash credit generated during the relevant year 1993-94. This alone is sufficient to sustain the order of the Tribunal in deleting the amount from the assessment for asst. yr. 1993-94. 11. In light of the facts reiterated above and after going through the findings of the Honourable High Courts and Coordinate Bench cited supra

ACIT 2 (1), INDORE vs. M/S JILA INDUSTRIES LTD, DHAR

In the result this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R.Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanivirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit-2(1), Indore M/S. Jiji Industries Ltd., (Formerly Known As बनाम/ Krishna Profiles Pvt. Ltd.), Vs. Plot No.316, Sejwaya, Billod, Dhar (Mp) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A.N. - Aacck 1383 M Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2022

TDS at all and this proposition is also supported by the decisions quoted by Ld. A/R mentioned earlier. 5.7 At this stage we also take note of the Ground No. 1.1 wherein the Revenue has claimed that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding Mr. Aashik Asaria as a resident of UAE having no permanent establishment in India

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

unexplained investment u/s 69 In the hands of the assessee instead of unexplained cash credit u/s 68.” 4.1 Thus, it is clear from the finding of the AO that apart from show cause notice issued to the assesse dated 31.10.2018 no other material or evidence is referred in the above finding of the AO. The AO has assumed that

THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S MOENUS TEXTILE PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10

invested in equity 6 Moenus Textile P. Ltd. shares and addition was made for unexplained cash credit. The matter traveled up to this Tribunal and vide ITANo.185/Ind/2012 dated 02.07.2012 issue was set aside to the ld. AO and in the set aside proceedings Ld. AO accepted the share capital received from various persons including Shri Jayvant N. Patel. Similarly

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

investments by PB for A.Y. such lender companies. 2015-16. 5 Interest paid The appellant had paid First para Audited - and TDS made interest on the subject at page no. Profit & had duly been loans and has also 49 of her Loss shown made necessary TDS. Order. Accounts & The lender companies Income- have duly incorporated Tax such income in their

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

investments by PB for A.Y. such lender companies. 2015-16. 5 Interest paid The appellant had paid First para Audited - and TDS made interest on the subject at page no. Profit & had duly been loans and has also 49 of her Loss shown made necessary TDS. Order. Accounts & The lender companies Income- have duly incorporated Tax such income in their

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” Page 1 of 28 Man Development Assessment year 2017-18 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case- records perused. 3. Brief facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-firm, engaged in the business of real estate, filed return of income

THEACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KETI CONSTRUCTION LTD., INDORE

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit(Central)-2 M/S Keti Construction Ltd Indore Vastalya Chamebers, Sapna Sangeeta, 31/6, Sneh Nagar Vs. Main Road, Indore

investment made by the assessee and disallowance u/s 14A shall be worked out even if the assessee does not have any exempt income as clarified by the CBDT as per circular No. 05 of 2014 dated 11.02.2014. This has been further reaffirmed by amendment in Finance Act 2022. Inserting explanation which is clarificatory in nature & hence has retrospective operation

PUSHPA DEVELOPERS,INDORE vs. ACIT1(1),INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2012-13 Pushpa Developers Acit-1(1) Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aamfp5870H Appellant By Shri Tribhuvan Sachdeva & Harsh Vijayvargiya, Ars, Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: The Above Captioned Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Cit(A))-1, Indore Dated 05.02.2018 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act

TDS, but ld. AO was not satisfied and made the addition for unsecured loan of Rs.3,09,00,000/- and disallowance the interest expenditure of Rs. 24,54,755/- in the case of the following five companies, assessing income at Rs.3,45,52,800/- Name of company Unsecured loan Interest paid HNJ Stock Broking Rs.28,00,000/- Rs.5

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

Investment Pvt. Ltd. (Rs 18,00,000/ out of advances received back Rs.2,85,00,000) and M/s H.S.Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.20,00,000 out of advances received back Rs. 1,36,00,000/). 19. This inquiry itself establishes that the loan creditor company M/s Proximo Energy Concept Pvt. Ltd. has advance unsecured loan of Rs.60 lac to the assesse

DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S GLOBUS MEGA PROJECT PVT. LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and C

unexplained expenditure is liable to be deleted. 8.2. Regarding u/s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance, the ld. D.R. taken us to page no. 72 of the Paper Book which is the ledger account relating to legal and professional fees wherein a sum of Rs. 11,33,500/- is paid to Municipal Corporation, Bhopal on 03.08.2009. Similarly various payments made to local

MANISH GOYAL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimanish Goyal Acit 2(1) G-2, Plot No.110 G-2, Plot Bhopal No.110 Kolar Road, Sarvadham Vs. Colony, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aefpg 2251J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.05.2024

unexplained increase in the capital account. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A) and given the details of corresponding assets against the opening balance of capital as on 01.04.2015 at Rs.1,72,99,367/-. However, the CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the AO on the ground that the assessee has declared income

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

unexplained cash credit. These grounds read as under: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law by restricted the addition of Rs.22,64,81,571/-up to Rs.7,01,42,108/- and by deleting the addition of Rs.75,00,000 as well as Rs.25,00,000/- by wrongly