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)

seizure, the receipts of Rs.6,33,12,350/- as per registered sale deeds from sale of units in ‘The View’ project were not 6 Mohanlal Chugh & others found recorded in the regular books of account. The Assessing Officer further noted that the taxable profit cannot be less than 30% of the total sales consideration as per registered sale deeds

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)

seizure, the receipts of Rs.6,33,12,350/- as per registered sale deeds from sale of units in ‘The View’ project were not 6 Mohanlal Chugh & others found recorded in the regular books of account. The Assessing Officer further noted that the taxable profit cannot be less than 30% of the total sales consideration as per registered sale deeds

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)

seizure, the receipts of Rs.6,33,12,350/- as per registered sale deeds from sale of units in ‘The View’ project were not 6 Mohanlal Chugh & others found recorded in the regular books of account. The Assessing Officer further noted that the taxable profit cannot be less than 30% of the total sales consideration as per registered sale deeds

THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE vs. M/S KETI CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) LTD. , INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

Search and seizure operations were carried out u/s 132 on the business as well as residential premises of Kalyan group covering various concerns and individual of the groups on 05.05.2011 wherein substantial disclosure of additional income was made by the group. Fresh assessment proceedings were Keti Construction (India) Ltd & Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd. ITA Nos. 877 & 878/Ind/2019 initiated and notice

THE DCIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. KALYAN TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

Search and seizure operations were carried out u/s 132 on the business as well as residential premises of Kalyan group covering various concerns and individual of the groups on 05.05.2011 wherein substantial disclosure of additional income was made by the group. Fresh assessment proceedings were Keti Construction (India) Ltd & Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd. ITA Nos. 877 & 878/Ind/2019 initiated and notice

DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KALYAN TOLL HIGHWAY PVT.LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit(Central)-2 M/S. Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt. Ltd. Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadck9401F Appellant By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

search and seizure. It is also submitted by the appellant that the inflated project cost of Rs. 1,83,32,0381- was capitalized to the cost of the project in this year and proportionate deduction on account of amortization depreciation

SHRI SAYYED HAMID ALI,UJJAIN vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Sayyed Hamid Ali Acit-2(1) बनाम/ (Prop. Fairdeal Steel) 60-A, Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area Maxi Road, Ujjain (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Acmpa7063M Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Ujjain, (In Short ‘Cit’), Dated 30.11.2016 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 10.03.2015 By Acit- 2(1), Ujjain.

search or seizure. For making addition on the basis of action carried out u/s 133A of the Act revenue authority need to correlate the surrender with the incriminating material or unrecorded transactions found during the course of survey. 24. We observe that the decision of Chawla Brother (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT [2011] 43 SOT 651 (Mum) squarely applied

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No. 82/Ind/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit (Central)-1 M/S. Bansal Extraction & बनाम/ Bhopal Exports (P) Ltd., Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aadcb 7521 M

search & seizure operation conducted at the business premises of present assessee and Bansal group resulting into seizure/impounding of loose papers/documents/incriminating material. Departmental Valuation Officer, Bhopal was referred by the ld.AO to estimate actual investment in construction of Building and Shed at 1-H new industrial area, Mandideep, Raisen, Bhopal and the report was submitted by DVO on 27.08.2014. iv) There

THE ACIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI YOGESH KUMAR HOTWANI, MANDSAUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

seizure warrant u/s 132 was also issued in the name of the assessee. Therefore, notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued for the assessment year 2006-07 to 2011-12, in response to which the assessee has filed the returns of income which included additional income computed as detailed below :- Particulars A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. TOTAL

SHRI YOGESH HOTWANI,MANDSAUR vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

seizure warrant u/s 132 was also issued in the name of the assessee. Therefore, notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued for the assessment year 2006-07 to 2011-12, in response to which the assessee has filed the returns of income which included additional income computed as detailed below :- Particulars A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. TOTAL

PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS AND TOLL HIGHWAYS (INDIA) LIMITED,MHOW vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, INDORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year: 2014-15 Prakash Asphalting & Toll Acit Central Circle -1 Highways (India) Limited, Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aabcp0398N Assessee By Shri Anup Garg & Vikas Guru, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2025

depreciation on the same was claimed consistently by the appellant and onwards when the appellant was confronted with this fact, the appellant offered undisclosed income in the submission. Addition of Rs. 2,12,774/- was made to the total income of the assessee for the AY 2014-15 and penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB was initiated on this issue.” 3. Aggrieved

M/S. MADHYA PRADESH CRICKET ASSOCIATION,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed and consequently the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13 Madhya Pradesh Cricket Dcit, 1(1), Association Indore बनाम/ Holkar Stadium, Vs. 7, Race Course Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaatg3527C Appellant By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Shri Arpit Gaur (Ar) Revenue By Shri Lal Chand (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.06.2017

search and seizure powers and are invariably subjected to Parliamentary or legislative oversight. The primary object for setting up such regulatory bodies would be to ensure general public utility. The prescribing of standards, and enforcing those standards, through accreditation and continuing supervision through inspection etc., cannot be considered as trade, business or commercial activity, merely because the testing procedures