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

undisclosed income of Rs. 3 crores admitted by Shri Shiv Kumar Hotwani on behalf of the assessee. It was explained to the AO vide letter dated 17.02.2014 that the assessee has disclosed the sum of Rs. 77,93,500/- and retracted balance surrender of Rs. 2,22,06,500/-( 3,00,00,000 (-) 77,93,500 ). However

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

undisclosed income of Rs. 3 crores admitted by Shri Shiv Kumar Hotwani on behalf of the assessee. It was explained to the AO vide letter dated 17.02.2014 that the assessee has disclosed the sum of Rs. 77,93,500/- and retracted balance surrender of Rs. 2,22,06,500/-( 3,00,00,000 (-) 77,93,500 ). However

ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN vs. A ONE ENCLAVE, UJJAIN

In the result, grounds taken by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1(1), V/S M/S. A One Enclave, Ujjain 3687/1, Hariphatak Road, Ujjain

depreciation and losses, balance income was offered for taxation. Ld. A.O was however not convinced with this claim and was of the view that the assessee is not eligible for any deduction from the income surrendered during the course of survey. He accordingly treated the unaccounted investment in hotel building at Rs. 1,25,01,135/- as income from undisclosed

SHRI GOPAL SONI,MANDSAUR vs. ADDLL. CIT , RATLAM

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2000-01 is

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

undisclosed income of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- for Assessment Year 2001-02 and 2002-03 and agreed to offer it for tax in the regular return of income to be filed subsequent to the survey proceedings. Gopala Krishna Soni ITA No.712 to 714/Ind/2017 24. Subsequently for Assessment Year 2001-02 return of income from business was submitted

SHRI GOPAL KRISHNA SONI,MANDSAUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME-TAX , RATLAM

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2000-01 is

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

undisclosed income of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- for Assessment Year 2001-02 and 2002-03 and agreed to offer it for tax in the regular return of income to be filed subsequent to the survey proceedings. Gopala Krishna Soni ITA No.712 to 714/Ind/2017 24. Subsequently for Assessment Year 2001-02 return of income from business was submitted

SHRI GOPAL KRISHNA SONI,MANDSAUR vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RATLAM

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2000-01 is

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

undisclosed income of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- for Assessment Year 2001-02 and 2002-03 and agreed to offer it for tax in the regular return of income to be filed subsequent to the survey proceedings. Gopala Krishna Soni ITA No.712 to 714/Ind/2017 24. Subsequently for Assessment Year 2001-02 return of income from business was submitted

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. 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. 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

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

undisclosed income deleted during search and excess claim of depreciation. M/s Keti Constructions(India), Ltd, Assessment Year 2008-09 1.On

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

undisclosed income deleted during search and excess claim of depreciation. M/s Keti Constructions(India), Ltd, Assessment Year 2008-09 1.On

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

M/S. BHANDARI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

undisclosed income of the assessee in the form of unexplained investments. The same could not be part of P&L account and no income based deductions under chapter IV 'D' can be claimed against it. The AO should have asked the assessee how these hundis were realized and formed part of Income and expenditure account as business receipts against which

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

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