M/S. ASPIRANT MERCANTILE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(3), INDORE

In the result, these three appeals of by different assessees in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11 Avocado Trading Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company, Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4206K Assessment Year: 2010-11 Aspirant Mercantile Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company,Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4207J

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and the same stands deleted and therefore, Ground No.2 in the appeal of assessee i.e. Frolic Reality Pvt. Ltd. is allowed. 37. Now we take up ground No.3 in the case of all the three assessees which relate to disallowance of expenses as well as depreciation

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

depreciation at Rs.1,53,066/- to be carry forward for set up in subsequent years. 3. After passing of the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, Ld. Pr. CIT examined the assessment records and documents filed by the assessee and notice that the M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. assessment order is prima facie, erroneous and prejudicial

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68. However, the addition on account of share capital received was made after reducing there from, the income already offered by the respondent on account of peak credit as discussed in Para 12.9 of the assessment order. Penalty proceedings in respect of the addition so made by the AO were initiated in Para

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68. However, the addition on account of share capital received was made after reducing there from, the income already offered by the respondent on account of peak credit as discussed in Para 12.9 of the assessment order. Penalty proceedings in respect of the addition so made by the AO were initiated in Para

INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. PURUSHOTTAM GUPTA, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

depreciation), Net profit, N.P. margin. Reasons for short fall in Gross profit margin, if any may be explained with supporting evidences. 3. Month-wise details of opening stocks, purchase, sale and closing stock of different materials -indicate quantity and value wise. 2.10 That however the assessee neither filed any written reply nor requested adjournment. 2.11 That the assessee had mentioned

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

credit of undisclosed income offered in earlier years (telescoping) without specifying the detailed working and have been in the nature and component of income offered in earlier years. Therefore, the AO was of the view that peak theory applied by the assessee is not correct and the total undisclosed income offered by the assessee does not cover this amount. Accordingly

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

credit of undisclosed income offered in earlier years (telescoping) without specifying the detailed working and have been in the nature and component of income offered in earlier years. Therefore, the AO was of the view that peak theory applied by the assessee is not correct and the total undisclosed income offered by the assessee does not cover this amount. Accordingly

THE ACIT, 5(1), INDORE vs. M/S. REGAL IRON & STEEL WORKS, INDORE

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Assistant Commissioner Of Regal Iron & Steel Works, Income Tax 5(1) Vs. 38, Kibe Compound, Indore Indore (Revenue) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aadfr7119L Revenue By Shri Rajiv Jain, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Manjit Sachdeva & Avinash Gaur, Advocates Date Of Hearing 11.7.2018 Date Of 26.7.2018 Pronouncement

cash credit and unexplained partners capital respectively and added the same u/s 68 of the Act. 2 Regal Iron & Steel Works Minor disallowances were also made for car running expenses and depreciation

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY SHUKLA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Sanjay Shukla, Acit Central Circle 2, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit Central Circle 2, Shri Sanjay Shukla, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03..2022 आदेश / O R D E R

cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and interest thereon Rs. 4,74,82,575/- 2. Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act Rs. 3,57,623/- 3. Ad hoc disallowance @ 5% of the expenses Rs.21,33,556/- 4. Unexplained agricultural income Rs.6,80,640/- 5. Disallowance of depreciation

SHRI SANJAY SHUKLA ,INDORE vs. ACIT,CENTRAL-CIRLE-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Sanjay Shukla, Acit Central Circle 2, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit Central Circle 2, Shri Sanjay Shukla, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03..2022 आदेश / O R D E R

cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and interest thereon Rs. 4,74,82,575/- 2. Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act Rs. 3,57,623/- 3. Ad hoc disallowance @ 5% of the expenses Rs.21,33,556/- 4. Unexplained agricultural income Rs.6,80,640/- 5. Disallowance of depreciation

RAINA GARG,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Raina Garg, Ito-4(1), Prop. M/S. Garg Trading Bhopal Company, बनाम/ Purana Kabadkhana, Vs. Jumerati, Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aawpg4732F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.02.2024

unexplained cash credit) Page 11 of 18 Raina Garg, Bhopal ITA No. 334/Ind/2023 – AY 2015-16 11. From submissions of assessee, following facts emerge: (i) The assessee took loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- on 16.03.2015 through a/c payee cheque drawn on lender’s Current A/c with bank; (ii) The lender is a partnership firm with PAN: AAUFA0411H

THE DCIT, 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. MODERN LABORATORIES, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ ./ ./ I.T.A. No.277 & Co.16/Ind/2014 ./ "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09

cash credit in respect of this company as unexplained under section 68 of the Act in the light of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Rathi Finlease Limited (supra). Accordingly, Ground No. 2 of Cross Objection of the assessee is therefore, dismissed. 26. Ground No. 3 related sustenance

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

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

credit towards Long Term Capital Gain earned on sale of shares on stock exchange, by holding it as bogus, more particularly when Ld. A.O relied merely on third party information and failed to bring any positive, direct and cogent material on record to substantiate the impugned treatment for making the addition. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances

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

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

credit towards Long Term Capital Gain earned on sale of shares on stock exchange, by holding it as bogus, more particularly when Ld. A.O relied merely on third party information and failed to bring any positive, direct and cogent material on record to substantiate the impugned treatment for making the addition. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances

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

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

credit towards Long Term Capital Gain earned on sale of shares on stock exchange, by holding it as bogus, more particularly when Ld. A.O relied merely on third party information and failed to bring any positive, direct and cogent material on record to substantiate the impugned treatment for making the addition. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances

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

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

credit towards Long Term Capital Gain earned on sale of shares on stock exchange, by holding it as bogus, more particularly when Ld. A.O relied merely on third party information and failed to bring any positive, direct and cogent material on record to substantiate the impugned treatment for making the addition. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances

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

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

credit towards Long Term Capital Gain earned on sale of shares on stock exchange, by holding it as bogus, more particularly when Ld. A.O relied merely on third party information and failed to bring any positive, direct and cogent material on record to substantiate the impugned treatment for making the addition. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances

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

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

credit towards Long Term Capital Gain earned on sale of shares on stock exchange, by holding it as bogus, more particularly when Ld. A.O relied merely on third party information and failed to bring any positive, direct and cogent material on record to substantiate the impugned treatment for making the addition. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances