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)

undisclosed investment for purchase of plots in Pulak City on account of purchase consideration paid being less than the guideline value cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire addition of Rs.3,79,04,952/- made by the Assessing Officer in the assessee’s income. 12.2 Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal

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)

undisclosed investment for purchase of plots in Pulak City on account of purchase consideration paid being less than the guideline value cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire addition of Rs.3,79,04,952/- made by the Assessing Officer in the assessee’s income. 12.2 Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal

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)

undisclosed investment for purchase of plots in Pulak City on account of purchase consideration paid being less than the guideline value cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire addition of Rs.3,79,04,952/- made by the Assessing Officer in the assessee’s income. 12.2 Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal

SHREEPAL HUMAD,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishreepal Humad Pr. Cit-1 Near Civil Hospital, Bus Indore Vs. Stand Road, Manasa Madhya Pradesh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaxph1346 K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21 .06.2023

depreciation, in such manner as may be prescribed. (k) “Income-tax Act” means the Income-tax Act, 1961; (l) “last date” means such date as may be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette; (m) “prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this Act; (n) “specified date” means the 31st day of January, 2020; (o) “tax arrear” means

M/S KETI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

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

depreciation claimed pertains to the specified year under consideration, secondly the alleged undisclosed income in the form of excess depreciation

M/S KETI INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

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

depreciation claimed pertains to the specified year under consideration, secondly the alleged undisclosed income in the form of excess depreciation

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

depreciation on extra cost of construction added by him as per report of VO(P&M) is not allowable to assessee under the provisions of Act as addition on account of undisclosed investment has been made u/s 69B of the Act.” 2. The Only grievance of the assessee in the present appeal is regarding the assessed income

SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

depreciation increased from loss of Rs. 0.89 crores in AY 2009-10 to 4.49 crores in AY 2010-11. The appellant purchased shares of VAS Infra on the basis of quarterly results of the company showing drastic increase in sales. (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 4. Addition made on the basis of suspicion without any material on record

PRAYANK JAIN,INDORE vs. ACIT5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

depreciation increased from loss of Rs. 0.89 crores in AY 2009-10 to 4.49 crores in AY 2010-11. The appellant purchased shares of VAS Infra on the basis of quarterly results of the company showing drastic increase in sales. (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 4. Addition made on the basis of suspicion without any material on record

DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

depreciation increased from loss of Rs. 0.89 crores in AY 2009-10 to 4.49 crores in AY 2010-11. The appellant purchased shares of VAS Infra on the basis of quarterly results of the company showing drastic increase in sales. (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 4. Addition made on the basis of suspicion without any material on record

SAPAN SHAH,INDORE vs. ACIT-4(I), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

depreciation increased from loss of Rs. 0.89 crores in AY 2009-10 to 4.49 crores in AY 2010-11. The appellant purchased shares of VAS Infra on the basis of quarterly results of the company showing drastic increase in sales. (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 4. Addition made on the basis of suspicion without any material on record

GOVIND HARINARAYAN AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

depreciation increased from loss of Rs. 0.89 crores in AY 2009-10 to 4.49 crores in AY 2010-11. The appellant purchased shares of VAS Infra on the basis of quarterly results of the company showing drastic increase in sales. (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 4. Addition made on the basis of suspicion without any material on record

MANISH GOVIND AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

depreciation increased from loss of Rs. 0.89 crores in AY 2009-10 to 4.49 crores in AY 2010-11. The appellant purchased shares of VAS Infra on the basis of quarterly results of the company showing drastic increase in sales. (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 4. Addition made on the basis of suspicion without any material on record

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

depreciation u/s 32 against regular business- income based on the quantum of unexplained investment in building and shed assessed as deemed-income u/s 69B. Ld. AR submits that the assessee is not claiming any deduction against deemed-income itself as was the case before Hon’ble Gujrat High Court. Ld. AR submits that undisclosed

THE ACIT (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S. ARIBA FOODS (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

undisclosed income of Rs. 1,43,65,000/-. Thereafter the assessee submitted revised return on 22.08.2017 declaring a loss of Rs. 23,07,528/-, after declaring the aforesaid income of Rs. 1,43,65,000/- and claiming additional depreciation

SANTOSH RATHORE,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

undisclosed income was declared by the assessee. Assessee is one of the partners of the firm M/s Saras Agro. Credible information was received that the assessee has booked bogus expenses and also bogus loss from his Proprietary concern during the year of survey only. No details against these\nSantosh Rathore\nITA No. 451/Ind/2024 – AY 2015-16\nexpenses and loss have

ACIT, RATLAM vs. M/S SHIRANI MOTORS PVT. LTD., RATLAM (MP)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

depreciation expenses, the Ld. D.R. has no serious objection on the restrictions made by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore ground no. 2 & 3 are hereby rejected. 8. Regarding ground no. 4 disallowance of interest expenses u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act, The Ld. D.R. could not controvent the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has diverted

ACIT, RATLAM vs. M/S SHIRANI MOTORS PVT. LTD., RATLAM (MP)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

depreciation expenses, the Ld. D.R. has no serious objection on the restrictions made by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore ground no. 2 & 3 are hereby rejected. 8. Regarding ground no. 4 disallowance of interest expenses u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act, The Ld. D.R. could not controvent the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has diverted

ACIT, RATLAM, RATLAM vs. M/S SAGAR AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD, RATLAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

depreciation expenses, the Ld. D.R. has no serious objection on the restrictions made by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore ground no. 2 & 3 are hereby rejected. 8. Regarding ground no. 4 disallowance of interest expenses u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act, The Ld. D.R. could not controvent the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has diverted