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)

unexplained investment 4 Mohanlal Chugh & others in ‘Pulak City’ project and Rs.3,81,11,476/- on account of undisclosed investment in ‘ Sun City’ project without appreciating the facts and evidences brought in to light by the AO during assessment proceedings.” 2. First, we shall take up the departmental appeals filed in the case of Mohanlal Chug for the assessment years

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

investment in hotel building during the course of survey u/s 133A. A One Enclave 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) is justified in allowing claim of deductions on account of depreciation, interest, remuneration to the partners. expenses and carry forward depreciation out of additional unexplained

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 taken

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 on extra cost of construction of building and shed added as unexplained investment u/s 69B. 12. On perusal of order

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

unexplained investment on the basis of impounded dairy which in our view is merely a dumb document and such addition is made merely on presumption and surmises without establishing any concrete correlation with the regular business transaction carried out by the assessee. We therefore delete the addition of Rs.11,10,000/- and allow the assessee’s Ground No.1. 14. Ground

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

unexplained investment on the basis of impounded dairy which in our view is merely a dumb document and such addition is made merely on presumption and surmises without establishing any concrete correlation with the regular business transaction carried out by the assessee. We therefore delete the addition of Rs.11,10,000/- and allow the assessee’s Ground No.1. 14. Ground

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

unexplained investment on the basis of impounded dairy which in our view is merely a dumb document and such addition is made merely on presumption and surmises without establishing any concrete correlation with the regular business transaction carried out by the assessee. We therefore delete the addition of Rs.11,10,000/- and allow the assessee’s Ground No.1. 14. Ground

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RATLAM vs. SHRI SURESH CHAND JAIN, MEGHNAGAR DIST. JHABUA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & Acit 5(1) Shri Suresh Chand Jain Indore 99, Thandla Road, Vs. Meghnagar,Jhabua (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan:Aezpj 2697F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .09.2023

investment not earning income. Therefore, the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.9,23,185/- is Deleted. Therefore, the appeal on these grounds is Allowed.” 10.1 Thus, it is clear that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition on the ground that the assessee’s own interest free fund is sufficient to meet the requirements of interest free

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RATLAM, RATLAM vs. SHRI SURESH CHAND JAIN, JHABUA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & Acit 5(1) Shri Suresh Chand Jain Indore 99, Thandla Road, Vs. Meghnagar,Jhabua (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan:Aezpj 2697F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .09.2023

investment not earning income. Therefore, the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.9,23,185/- is Deleted. Therefore, the appeal on these grounds is Allowed.” 10.1 Thus, it is clear that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition on the ground that the assessee’s own interest free fund is sufficient to meet the requirements of interest free

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

investment made by the assessee. (iv) The angiography receipts of Rs. 1,96,900/- (v) To draw profit and loss for the survey period and that for the balance period separately. (vi) Depreciation claimed @40% on PET CT Scan machine (vii) The TDS on salaries paid to the doctors. 2. The effective ground in this appeal is against the legality

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

investment, profit element and other misc. discrepancies, whereas the AO has considered higher of the two figures viz. higher of total receipts and total payments in each assessment year to make the addition as either unexplained receipts or unexplained payments as tabled in para 12.3 of assessment order. The ld. CIT(A) observed that she did not find any force

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

investment, profit element and other misc. discrepancies, whereas the AO has considered higher of the two figures viz. higher of total receipts and total payments in each assessment year to make the addition as either unexplained receipts or unexplained payments as tabled in para 12.3 of assessment order. The ld. CIT(A) observed that she did not find any force

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

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

unexplained expenditure in respect of estimation of commission expense made by the Ld. AO @5% on the amount of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.83,94,034 034. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and applicable law, Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206,60,987/Ind/2019 Ld. CIT(A)-II, Indore erred

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

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

unexplained expenditure in respect of estimation of commission expense made by the Ld. AO @5% on the amount of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.83,94,034 034. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and applicable law, Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206,60,987/Ind/2019 Ld. CIT(A)-II, Indore erred

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

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

unexplained expenditure in respect of estimation of commission expense made by the Ld. AO @5% on the amount of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.83,94,034 034. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and applicable law, Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206,60,987/Ind/2019 Ld. CIT(A)-II, Indore erred

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

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

unexplained expenditure in respect of estimation of commission expense made by the Ld. AO @5% on the amount of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.83,94,034 034. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and applicable law, Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206,60,987/Ind/2019 Ld. CIT(A)-II, Indore erred

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

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

unexplained expenditure in respect of estimation of commission expense made by the Ld. AO @5% on the amount of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.83,94,034 034. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and applicable law, Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206,60,987/Ind/2019 Ld. CIT(A)-II, Indore erred

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

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

unexplained expenditure in respect of estimation of commission expense made by the Ld. AO @5% on the amount of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.83,94,034 034. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and applicable law, Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206,60,987/Ind/2019 Ld. CIT(A)-II, Indore erred