THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

132(4A) and section 292C the presumption has to be drawn that the documents belonged to Shri Manjeet Rajpal the person who has written those documents and in whose possession they were found. The appellant has cited various decisions in support of the said contention. No doubt the presumption as stated by the appellant has to be drawn against

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

132(4A) and section 292C the presumption has to be drawn that the documents belonged to Shri Manjeet Rajpal the person who has written those documents and in whose possession they were found. The appellant has cited various decisions in support of the said contention. No doubt the presumption as stated by the appellant has to be drawn against

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

132(4A) and section 292C the presumption has to be drawn that the documents belonged to Shri Manjeet Rajpal the person who has written those documents and in whose possession they were found. The appellant has cited various decisions in support of the said contention. No doubt the presumption as stated by the appellant has to be drawn against

M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 132(4) of the Act was recorded on 13-05-2011 and 27-05-2011, from Shri Tikamchand Garg , head of Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. Garg family, wherein in reply to question No.2 of his statement dtd. 13-05-2011 (Paper Book Page No.2) and again on 27-05-2013 in reply to question

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 132(4) of the Act was recorded on 13-05-2011 and 27-05-2011, from Shri Tikamchand Garg , head of Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. Garg family, wherein in reply to question No.2 of his statement dtd. 13-05-2011 (Paper Book Page No.2) and again on 27-05-2013 in reply to question

M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 132(4) of the Act was recorded on 13-05-2011 and 27-05-2011, from Shri Tikamchand Garg , head of Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. Garg family, wherein in reply to question No.2 of his statement dtd. 13-05-2011 (Paper Book Page No.2) and again on 27-05-2013 in reply to question

THE DCIT CENTRAL-(1), INDORE vs. M/S AYUSH AJAY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. , INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanii.T(Ss).A. Nos.14 To 16/Ind/2018 (Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10)

132 or requisition under section 132A , as the case may be, shall abate if any proceeding or any order of made Unser section 132A as the case may be shall abate sub - section (2) of section 153A of the first Act provides that if any proceeding or any order of assessment or reassessment made provision then assessment or reassessment relating

M/S NIKHIL ESTATE P LTD,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE (3) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Nikhil Estate Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Central)-3 M-102, Mezzanine, Floor, Indore Dhan Trident, P. No.B-3 Pu- Vs. 4, Sch. No.54, Vijay Nagar Square, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 8056 D Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.06.2023

132(4) of the Act accepted the value of excess stock as additional business income for financial year 2016-17. So far as, admission of undisclosed income of Rs.1,41,75,569/- is concerned there is no dispute at the end of both the parties. The bone of contention is that whether the provision of section 115BBE

M/S SUPREMO INDIA LTD ,INDORE vs. THE AIT CENTRAL 3, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

132(4) of the Act accepted the value of excess stock as additional business income for financial year 2016-17. So far as, admission of undisclosed income of Rs.1,41,75,569/- is concerned there is no dispute at the end of both the parties. The bone of contention is that whether the provision of section 115BBE

M/S. ALANKAR JEWELLWER,VIDISHA vs. THE ACIT- II, VIDISHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessees in

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2016-17 M/S. Alankar Jewellers Acit-Ii Nikasha Road, Vidisha Bhopal बनाम/ Vidisha Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aavfa1527D It(Ss)A No.205/Ind/2019 Assessment Year:2016-17 Acit-Ii M/S. Alankar Jewellers Bhopal Nikasha Road, Vidisha बनाम/ Vidisha Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aavfa1527D Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Respondent By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad:

132(4) during the course of search have accepted disclosure of Rs. 65 lac in the hands of Alankar Jewelers on account of entries in BS-4 which contained list of some pawning article found during the course of search. The Ld. AO further held that the family members have not shown interest income on money lending Alankar Jewellers ITANo.838/Ind/2019

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance of claim of long term capital gain on sale of listed shares amounting to Rs. 77,57,559/- is the issue before us. The said claim of the assessee has been rejected by both the parties below and hence the appeal before us. 3. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and we have also

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance of claim of long term capital gain on sale of listed shares amounting to Rs. 77,57,559/- is the issue before us. The said claim of the assessee has been rejected by both the parties below and hence the appeal before us. 3. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and we have also

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance of claim of long term capital gain on sale of listed shares amounting to Rs. 77,57,559/- is the issue before us. The said claim of the assessee has been rejected by both the parties below and hence the appeal before us. 3. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and we have also

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance of claim of long term capital gain on sale of listed shares amounting to Rs. 77,57,559/- is the issue before us. The said claim of the assessee has been rejected by both the parties below and hence the appeal before us. 3. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and we have also

THE ACIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10

132(4), 7 Shri Manish Kalani of the assessee company stated that additional amount of income of Rs.30,00,00,000/- to cover and represent any undisclosed income, receipts, discrepancy or disallowance or any valuable article or things, money jewellery, documents of paper found and seized during the search operation, such amount has been derived from our business activities. From

THE ACIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

132(4), Shri Manish Kalani of the assessee company stated that additional amount of income of Rs.30,00,00,000/- to cover and represent any undisclosed income, receipts, discrepancy or disallowance or any valuable article or things, money jewellery, documents of paper found and seized during the search operation, such amount has been derived from our business activities. From

SHRI SAURABH KALANI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in both the assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

disallowance made of Rs.28345/- under section 14A of Income Tax Act. 6. Similarly, in the case of Shri Manish Kalani, who is also an individual and filed the return of income on 06.12.2010 in response to proceedings initiated under section 153A of the Income Tax Act vide notice under section 153A dated 22.10.2010 declaring total income at Rs.1

SHRI MANISH KALANI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in both the assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

disallowance made of Rs.28345/- under section 14A of Income Tax Act. 6. Similarly, in the case of Shri Manish Kalani, who is also an individual and filed the return of income on 06.12.2010 in response to proceedings initiated under section 153A of the Income Tax Act vide notice under section 153A dated 22.10.2010 declaring total income at Rs.1