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. AVOCADO TRADING 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

money amounting to Rs. 94,00,000/- received towards share capital and share premium under Section 68 on the alleged ground that it is unexplained cash credit. 2. The Appellant prays that the said addition be deleted. GROUND 2: ADDITION OF TRADE ADVANCES AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT 1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S. FROLIC REALTY 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

money amounting to Rs. 94,00,000/- received towards share capital and share premium under Section 68 on the alleged ground that it is unexplained cash credit. 2. The Appellant prays that the said addition be deleted. GROUND 2: ADDITION OF TRADE ADVANCES AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT 1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

money amounting to Rs. 94,00,000/- received towards share capital and share premium under Section 68 on the alleged ground that it is unexplained cash credit. 2. The Appellant prays that the said addition be deleted. GROUND 2: ADDITION OF TRADE ADVANCES AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT 1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

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

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

Depreciation Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Total 12,554,028 12,640,728 10,317,385 10,188,642 6,077,232 Expenses 8,960,546 7,714,292 6,154,570 4,378,113 4,821,128 Adjusted Net Profit Adjusted N P 3.73% 2.51% 3.27% 4.76% 2.85% Ratio 7.3 From the above table it is seen that Assessment

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

Depreciation Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Total 12,554,028 12,640,728 10,317,385 10,188,642 6,077,232 Expenses 8,960,546 7,714,292 6,154,570 4,378,113 4,821,128 Adjusted Net Profit Adjusted N P 3.73% 2.51% 3.27% 4.76% 2.85% Ratio 7.3 From the above table it is seen that Assessment

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

money. (iv) Rs. 17,05,300/- was offered on account of proportionate depreciation forgone by spreading over the total inflated project cost over the period/ life of the projects. 22. But surprisingly the Ld. A.O did not accepted the additional income offered by the assessee under the head “peak credit” and other heads and made various additions for unexplained

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

money. (iv) Rs. 17,05,300/- was offered on account of proportionate depreciation forgone by spreading over the total inflated project cost over the period/ life of the projects. 22. But surprisingly the Ld. A.O did not accepted the additional income offered by the assessee under the head “peak credit” and other heads and made various additions for unexplained

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. 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

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

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