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

SARTHAK REAL BUILT PVT. LTD, ,INDORE vs. DY, CIT,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT act 1961. 3. Further, the assessee has also filed the following application for admission of additional ground for the assessment year 2009- 10: “BEFORE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE IN THE MATTER OF M/S FERRO CONCRETE CONST. [INDIA] PVT. LTD. V/S DCIT 1[1], INDORE (M.P.) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 Ferro

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT act 1961. 3. Further, the assessee has also filed the following application for admission of additional ground for the assessment year 2009- 10: “BEFORE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE IN THE MATTER OF M/S FERRO CONCRETE CONST. [INDIA] PVT. LTD. V/S DCIT 1[1], INDORE (M.P.) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 Ferro

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT act 1961. 3. Further, the assessee has also filed the following application for admission of additional ground for the assessment year 2009- 10: “BEFORE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE IN THE MATTER OF M/S FERRO CONCRETE CONST. [INDIA] PVT. LTD. V/S DCIT 1[1], INDORE (M.P.) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 Ferro

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S FERRO CONCREATE CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT. LTD INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT act 1961. 3. Further, the assessee has also filed the following application for admission of additional ground for the assessment year 2009- 10: “BEFORE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE IN THE MATTER OF M/S FERRO CONCRETE CONST. [INDIA] PVT. LTD. V/S DCIT 1[1], INDORE (M.P.) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 Ferro

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

unexplained money on account of business receipts at Rs.69,70,505/- and also denied the deduction for capital expenditure claimed by the assessee having been applied for charitable purposes. Income assessed at Rs.2,86,69,615/-. Assessee challenged all the finding of the ld. AO before the Ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. Ld. CIT(A) held that proceedings

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

unexplained money on account of business receipts at Rs.69,70,505/- and also denied the deduction for capital expenditure claimed by the assessee having been applied for charitable purposes. Income assessed at Rs.2,86,69,615/-. Assessee challenged all the finding of the ld. AO before the Ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. Ld. CIT(A) held that proceedings

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)

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed and\n\"impugned order” is set aside

depreciation), Net profit,\nN.P. margin. Reasons for short fall in Gross profit margin, if\nany may be explained with supporting evidences.\n3. Month-wise details of opening stocks, purchase, sale and\nclosing stock of different materials -indicate quantity and\nvalue wise.\n2.10 That however the assessee neither filed any written reply\nnor requested adjournment.\n2.11 That the assessee had mentioned

NOORUL HASAN BAIG,2013-14 vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 Noorul Hasan Baig, A.C.I.T., E-78, Koh-E-Fiza, 5(1), बनाम/ Bairagarh Road, Bhopal. Vs. Bhopal. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Afmpb1286N Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2023

depreciation. Aggrieved by action of AO, the assessee again went in first-appeal but could not succeed. Now the assessee has come up in this appeal before us on various grounds as re-produced earlier. Ground No. 1, 2, 3, 6: 5. Ground No. 1 & 6 are general in nature. Ground No. 2 & 3 are not pleaded and no submission