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

1 and 3 of sub-section (2) of section 271AAA of the Act and that the assessee has admitted the undisclosed income in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act during the course of search and has also paid taxes together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income. The bone of contention revolves round

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 271AAA of the Act. 7. Before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee submitted as follows: The appellant is an individual, presently aged nearly 51 years. The appellant is regularly assessed to Income-Tax for the last many years. A search U/S. 132(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 was carried out by the Assistant Director of Income

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

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

132 6 , 6नयंVण से "ा]त होता है / वेज 5कसी [यि"त के पास िजसके अनुसार य)द कोई भी दFता तो यह माना जाएगा 5क यह उसी से संबंध रखता है और उसमG दज: "@वि टयां पूर" तरह से सJय है । इस संदभ: मG य)द आपके Bवारा उपरो"त पृ ठD मG दज: जानकार" का Fप ट"करण नह

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 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

disallowance made at Rs.2048173/- therefore, be kindly deleted. 4. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned lower authorities wholly wrong and opposed to fact that the society had paid Rs.561877 to Vijay Ramani who is the member of the society and therefore, there is violation of section 13(1

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

disallowance made at Rs.2048173/- therefore, be kindly deleted. 4. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned lower authorities wholly wrong and opposed to fact that the society had paid Rs.561877 to Vijay Ramani who is the member of the society and therefore, there is violation of section 13(1

PREM CHAWLA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

disallowance of purchase, freight and cartage, wages and salary and salary expenses challenged before us in the ground mentioned in para 14. In the result respective grounds are partly allowed as per terms indicated above.” 2.11 The above premises drawn up by us deals with quantum assessment proceedings. 2.12 In so far as penalty proceedings u/s 271(1

PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

disallowance of purchase, freight and cartage, wages and salary and salary expenses challenged before us in the ground mentioned in para 14. In the result respective grounds are partly allowed as per terms indicated above.” 2.11 The above premises drawn up by us deals with quantum assessment proceedings. 2.12 In so far as penalty proceedings u/s 271(1

PREM CHAWLA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

disallowance of purchase, freight and cartage, wages and salary and salary expenses challenged before us in the ground mentioned in para 14. In the result respective grounds are partly allowed as per terms indicated above.” 2.11 The above premises drawn up by us deals with quantum assessment proceedings. 2.12 In so far as penalty proceedings u/s 271(1

PREM CHAWLA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

disallowance of purchase, freight and cartage, wages and salary and salary expenses challenged before us in the ground mentioned in para 14. In the result respective grounds are partly allowed as per terms indicated above.” 2.11 The above premises drawn up by us deals with quantum assessment proceedings. 2.12 In so far as penalty proceedings u/s 271(1

M/S. STI (INDIA) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Disallowance on account of prior year expenses Rs. 3,91,610/- Total Rs. 1847021/- 11. We will first take up the legal issue through which Ld. counsel for the assessee has challenged the validity of the notice u/s 274 r.w. section 271(1)(c) of the Act by pleading that the Ld. Assessing Officer while issuing the impugned notice should

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

section 271(1)(c). (Ram Kumar Yadav) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Indore 19. From going through the above notice it is well evident that in the notice the specific charge/limb u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not mentioned. The Ld. A.O has not striked off one of the charge which is not relevant to the assessee

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

section 271(1)(c). (Ram Kumar Yadav) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Indore 19. From going through the above notice it is well evident that in the notice the specific charge/limb u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not mentioned. The Ld. A.O has not striked off one of the charge which is not relevant to the assessee

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 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

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