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

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 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

JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 250(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and therefore the directions of the Ld. CIT(A) were incomplete ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition, that was made based on diaries seized during search proceedings u/s 132

THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE vs. JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 250(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and therefore the directions of the Ld. CIT(A) were incomplete ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition, that was made based on diaries seized during search proceedings u/s 132

AKASH JAIN,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL-1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiakash Jain, Dcit (Central-1) बनाम/ B-244, Shahpura, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessees By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

disallowance and the CIT(A) upheld AO’s action. Therefore, the limited question which calls our adjudication is whether or not the section 271AAB was applicable in present case? 4. At first, we re-produce the relevant portion of section 271AAB reading as under: “(1A) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132(4) or in case, if they want to rely on the same, they should not have denied the opportunity to the petitioners when they demanded of cross examining the persons who gave the statement. When the department has taken a stand that there are two groups which were searched by a single warrant and that the companies

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132(4) or in case, if they want to rely on the same, they should not have denied the opportunity to the petitioners when they demanded of cross examining the persons who gave the statement. When the department has taken a stand that there are two groups which were searched by a single warrant and that the companies

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132(4) or in case, if they want to rely on the same, they should not have denied the opportunity to the petitioners when they demanded of cross examining the persons who gave the statement. When the department has taken a stand that there are two groups which were searched by a single warrant and that the companies

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132(4) or in case, if they want to rely on the same, they should not have denied the opportunity to the petitioners when they demanded of cross examining the persons who gave the statement. When the department has taken a stand that there are two groups which were searched by a single warrant and that the companies

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132(4) or in case, if they want to rely on the same, they should not have denied the opportunity to the petitioners when they demanded of cross examining the persons who gave the statement. When the department has taken a stand that there are two groups which were searched by a single warrant and that the companies

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132(4) or in case, if they want to rely on the same, they should not have denied the opportunity to the petitioners when they demanded of cross examining the persons who gave the statement. When the department has taken a stand that there are two groups which were searched by a single warrant and that the companies