M/S SUPREMO INDIA LTD ,INDORE vs. THE AIT CENTRAL 3, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

section 69,69A,69B and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property, profit and gains of business or profession or capital

RAJESH BAJAJ,BURHANPUR vs. THE ACIT , KHANDWA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Rajesh Kumar Bajaj Acit 13, Rajesh Industries, Vs. Khandwa Industrial Estate Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Ahnpb0036F Appellant By Shri S.S. Sheetal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashishporwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2020 O R D E R

capital gains” and “income from other sources”. As far as Section appearing in Section 115BBE of the Act i.e. Section Section 68, Section 69, Section 69A, 69B

ASHOK KUMAR MOONAT,RATLAM vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-3), INDORE, INDORE

capital account\nand without showing the same as additional income. Therefore, the\nadditional income offered was not shown in profit and loss account.\nThus, the AO was justified in making addition on account of\nundisclosed income declared in statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4)\nduring search. Also, the appellant has accepted the addition made by\nthe AO amounting

RAMANLAL PIRODIA,RATLAM vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-3, AAYKAR BHAWAN

capital account\nand without showing the same as additional income. Therefore, the\nadditional income offered was not shown in profit and loss account.\nRamanlal Pirodia\nITA No.778/Ind/2025\n Assessment year 2019-20\nThus, the AO was justified in making addition on account of\nundisclosed income declared in statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4)\nduring search. Also, the appellant

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

capital gain’ and since the assessee fulfills the conditions laid down in provisions of s.54F of the Act, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 54F to the Act. Further, the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sheth Developers (P) Ltd. (2012) 208/25 taxmann.com 173, as also relied upon

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

capital gain’ and since the assessee fulfills the conditions laid down in provisions of s.54F of the Act, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 54F to the Act. Further, the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sheth Developers (P) Ltd. (2012) 208/25 taxmann.com 173, as also relied upon

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

capital gain’ and since the assessee fulfills the conditions laid down in provisions of s.54F of the Act, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 54F to the Act. Further, the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sheth Developers (P) Ltd. (2012) 208/25 taxmann.com 173, as also relied upon

ACIT-2.INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR BANSAL, KHANDWA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

capital account of the assessee in the SS 211 of 2021 4 Rajendra Kumar Bansal books of M/s Motilal Gopikishan for the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2018 in support of cash withdrawn from the firm, M/s Motilal Gopikishan so as to substantiate that the assessee was having sufficient balance of cash available with him to justify the source of loans

SHRI PREMDEEP RAJPUT,INDORE vs. THE CENTRAL CIRCLE UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Premdeep Rajput, Acit, 47-B, Sector A, Central Circle, बनाम/ Industrial Estate, Ujjain Vs. Sanwer Road, Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abvpr8534N Assessee By Shri Sushil Jethani & Shri V.K. Bhandari, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2023

capital account and without showing the same as additional income. Therefore, the additional income offered was not shown in profit and loss account. Thus, the AO was justified in making addition on account of undisclosed income declared in statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4) during search. Also, the appellant has accepted the addition made by the AO amounting

M/S BANSAL EXTRACTION & EXPORT P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Bansal Extraction & Dcit Export Pvt. Ltd. Central-1 3Rd Floor Tawa Complex, Bittan Bhopal Vs. Market E-4, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aadcb 7521 M Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2023

69B and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from "other sources" because the provisions of Sections

THE ACIT CENTRAL-UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S ITALIAN EDIBLES P LTD, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central) M/S. Italian Edibles Pvt. Ujjain Ltd. Vs. Udhyog Nagar, Palda Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee /Respondent) Pan: Aacci 2746N Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb Ars Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023

capital account and without showing the same as Page 11 of 20 ITANo.219/Ind/2022 Italian Edible Pvt. additional income. Therefore, the additional income offered was not shown in profit and loss account. Thus, the AO was justified in making addition on account of undisclosed income declared in statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4) during search. Also, the appellant has accepted

BRIJ MOHAN DAS DEVI PRASAD,SEHORE vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2 BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S.Brij Mohandas Devi Acit/Dcit, Prasad, Central Circle 2, बनाम/ House No. 62, Ward No.18, Bhopal Station Road, Vs. Sehore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aadfb3526F Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal, Ca & Shri Mahesh Agrawal, Ca, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

capital account and without showing the same as additional income. Therefore, the additional income offered was not shown in profit and loss account. Thus, the AO was justified in making addition on account of undisclosed income declared in statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4) during search. Also, the appellant has accepted the addition made by the AO amounting

LATE SHRI RAMANAND TAPARIA TH/LH CHANDADEVI TAPARIA ,INDORE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTREQ, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

69B (undisclosed\ninvestments), Section 69C (unexplained expenditure), or\nSection 69D (amount borrowed or repaid on hundi). The\nAssessing Officer can make additions under any of these\nsections, if applicable, in addition to Section 69.\nThe burden of proof lies on the assessee to prove the identity,\ncreditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. A mere\npayment through banking channels does

LATE SHRI RAMANAND TAPARIA TH/LH CHANDA DEVI TAPARIA,INDORE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

69B (undisclosed\ninvestments), Section 69C (unexplained expenditure), or\nSection 69D (amount borrowed or repaid on hundi). The\nAssessing Officer can make additions under any of these\nsections, if applicable, in addition to Section 69.\nThe burden of proof lies on the assessee to prove the identity,\ncreditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. A mere\npayment through banking channels does

M/S. APEX REALITIES,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(2), INDORE

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2015-16

69B of the f. T. Act 1961 of Rs.11,30,80,000/- on account of unexplained and undisclosed investment by ignoring the facts of the case and enquiry made by AO. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ClT{A} was justified in ignoring the fact that assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness

THE ITO 3(2), INDORE vs. M/S. APEX REALITIES, INDORE

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2015-16

69B of the f. T. Act 1961 of Rs.11,30,80,000/- on account of unexplained and undisclosed investment by ignoring the facts of the case and enquiry made by AO. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ClT{A} was justified in ignoring the fact that assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness

ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL vs. SHRI SANJEEV AGRAWAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 The Acit (Central)-2, Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Bhopal, Mp-462011 H.No.E-2/134, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal, Mp-452016 Pan Adhpa8387N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit(Dr) For Assessee : Shri S. S. Deshpande, Ca Shri Satyajeet Chatterjee, Ca

capital invested in firm, can be claimed as deduction - Held, yes - Whether by virtue of section 10(2A) share income from firm does not form part of total income of partner and, therefore, expenditure incurred by partner in earning that Shri Sanjeev Agrawal Page 30 of 48 income would not be allowable - Held, yes - Assessee was a partner