RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

purchase and stock for the year. All these facts stated in the reasons recorded are taken by the AO from the assessment record itself which manifest that after completing scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) the AO has reopened the assessment on the basis of the same facts and records available with him and no new material or facts which were

PIYUSH JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(4), INDORE , ITO, INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

section 199C of the Finance Act, 2016 disclosing income of Rs.\n5,00,000/- under Prime Minister Garib Kalyan Yojna Rules 2016. He paid tax of Rs.\n2,49,500/- on 29-03-2017 and deposited Rs.1,25,000/- with UCO Bank as per the scheme.\nThus, addition to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of SBN notes

THE ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. M/S. SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by the Revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13

bogus creditors, Ld. DR submitted that assessee failed to prove the existence of these liabilities in the nature of creditors with evidence. Ld. DR placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Sunderdeep Construction Pvt. Ltd Apex Court in the case of PCIT V/s NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd Civil Petition No.29855 of 2018 dated 5.3.2019. 5. Ld. Counsel

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

264 ITR 254 (Gauhati HC) xiv. DCIT vs. Smt. Namita Patwa, reported in (2018) 32 ITJ 123 (ITAT, Indore) 23. The Ld. CIT(A) while dealing with this issue categorically analysed the observation made by the Ld. AO in the following manner: “4.3.2 The appellant further submitted that the detailed discussion of the financial documents of the lender

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

264 ITR 254 (Gauhati HC) xiv. DCIT vs. Smt. Namita Patwa, reported in (2018) 32 ITJ 123 (ITAT, Indore) 23. The Ld. CIT(A) while dealing with this issue categorically analysed the observation made by the Ld. AO in the following manner: “4.3.2 The appellant further submitted that the detailed discussion of the financial documents of the lender

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

264 ITR 254 (Gauhati HC) xiv. DCIT vs. Smt. Namita Patwa, reported in (2018) 32 ITJ 123 (ITAT, Indore) 23. The Ld. CIT(A) while dealing with this issue categorically analysed the observation made by the Ld. AO in the following manner: “4.3.2 The appellant further submitted that the detailed discussion of the financial documents of the lender

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

bogus LTCG amounting to Rs. 22,10,437/- and the same should have been added to the income of assessee, after due examination and after giving opportunity to the assessee on the result of such examination. The assessee in his submission during the course of proceedings before me has submitted that the issue has been considered by the AO which

SMT ANJANA SINHA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

bogus loss, unaccounted investment u/s 69 of the Act. And unaccounted Capital Gains. No live link have been established by the Ld.A.O for making these additions with any incriminating material found during the course of search. The additions have 37 Sanjay Kumar Sinha,Anjana Sinha, Rajiv Sharma & Manju Sharma IT(SS)No.150 to 170/Ind/2017 been made merely on the basis

SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

bogus loss, unaccounted investment u/s 69 of the Act. And unaccounted Capital Gains. No live link have been established by the Ld.A.O for making these additions with any incriminating material found during the course of search. The additions have 37 Sanjay Kumar Sinha,Anjana Sinha, Rajiv Sharma & Manju Sharma IT(SS)No.150 to 170/Ind/2017 been made merely on the basis

SHRI RAJEEV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

bogus loss, unaccounted investment u/s 69 of the Act. And unaccounted Capital Gains. No live link have been established by the Ld.A.O for making these additions with any incriminating material found during the course of search. The additions have 37 Sanjay Kumar Sinha,Anjana Sinha, Rajiv Sharma & Manju Sharma IT(SS)No.150 to 170/Ind/2017 been made merely on the basis

SMT. MANJU SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

bogus loss, unaccounted investment u/s 69 of the Act. And unaccounted Capital Gains. No live link have been established by the Ld.A.O for making these additions with any incriminating material found during the course of search. The additions have 37 Sanjay Kumar Sinha,Anjana Sinha, Rajiv Sharma & Manju Sharma IT(SS)No.150 to 170/Ind/2017 been made merely on the basis

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

bogus donations in their names to channelize its unaccounted money -. ' The assessee in response to the specific show cause in this regard has argued that the, statements have been recorded behind the assessee and no cross enquiry was given to the assessee. Such submissions have been duly considered but not found acceptable. The assessee despite repeated requested failed to furnish

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

bogus donations in their names to channelize its unaccounted money -. ' The assessee in response to the specific show cause in this regard has argued that the, statements have been recorded behind the assessee and no cross enquiry was given to the assessee. Such submissions have been duly considered but not found acceptable. The assessee despite repeated requested failed to furnish