SAARAS AGRO INDUSTRIES ,KHANDWA vs. THE ACIT , KHANDWA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

133A on the basis of dumb document without corroborative evidence. Hence addition to the income is illegal, wrong & unlawful hence needs to be deleted. 2. Addition of Rs.l,00,00,000/- and Rs.3,11,56,849/- u/s 115BBE :- That the Ld. AO treated the surrendered amount of Rs.1 ,00,00,000/- as ITA Nos.910 & 911/Ind/2019 (Saaras Agro

M/S. KAKDA STEELS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

disallowance should be made under this head. 5. That under the circumstances, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 30,OO,OOO/- made on account of other miscellaneous discrepancies as the same was made without identifying any expenditure which is of undisclosed nature. 6. That under the circumstances, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

disallowance of purchase is purely based on a statement given during the course of survey u/s 133A of the Act. Written submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are reproduced below:- A survey was conducted in the case of the assessee on 09-10- 2015/10.10.2015. During the course of survey statement of the Mr. Santosh Choubey, the Managing Director

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

disallowance of purchase is purely based on a statement given during the course of survey u/s 133A of the Act. Written submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are reproduced below:- A survey was conducted in the case of the assessee on 09-10- 2015/10.10.2015. During the course of survey statement of the Mr. Santosh Choubey, the Managing Director

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

disallowance of purchase is purely based on a statement given during the course of survey u/s 133A of the Act. Written submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are reproduced below:- A survey was conducted in the case of the assessee on 09-10- 2015/10.10.2015. During the course of survey statement of the Mr. Santosh Choubey, the Managing Director

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

disallowance of purchase is purely based on a statement given during the course of survey u/s 133A of the Act. Written submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are reproduced below:- A survey was conducted in the case of the assessee on 09-10- 2015/10.10.2015. During the course of survey statement of the Mr. Santosh Choubey, the Managing Director

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHOPAL vs. VINDHYACHAL BROTHERS, OBAIDULLAGANJ

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2018-19 Acit Vindhyachal Brothers, Bhopal Patwari Halka No.10, बनाम/ Hoshangabad Road, Vs. Obaidullaganj (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aahfv2315A Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assesseeby Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ar Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025

disallowable under the Income Tax Act? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the addition made by the AO on the basis of statement given during survey is not sustainable in the absence of corroborative evidences, without appreciating that: i The surrender

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

133A was carried out at the premises and Buidling Projects run by the assessee-company. Subsequently, a search u/s. 132 was also IT(SS)A No.83,84,86,87,90,91,109,110 & ITA, No.922 &923/Ind/2019 AG8 Ventures Ltd. carried on 29-31 January 2014 at the business place of assessee company and residential premises of Directors. Various books

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

133A was carried out at the premises and Buidling Projects run by the assessee-company. Subsequently, a search u/s. 132 was also IT(SS)A No.83,84,86,87,90,91,109,110 & ITA, No.922 &923/Ind/2019 AG8 Ventures Ltd. carried on 29-31 January 2014 at the business place of assessee company and residential premises of Directors. Various books

DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE vs. PUNJAB RETAIL (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

133A was carried out on the business premises of the assessee on 15.11.2016 which was concluded on 19.11.2016. During the course of survey additional income to the tune of Rs. 1,20,02,793/- was declared by the assessee on account of excess stock. While filing the income tax return on 07.11.2017 the valuation of difference in quantity of stock

DECENT INDUSTRIES P. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Decent Industries Ito-1(2), Private Ltd, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Corporate Park, बनाम/ Db City Area Hills, Vs. Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeca6271G Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta & Shri N.K. Gupta Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

133A carried out in the case of one ‘Shri Anand Sharma, Kolkata’ (entry operator) on 02.07.2013 pursuant to which the statements of Shri Anand Sharma were recorded on 02.07.2013/06.02.2014. The AO observed that Shri Anand Page 2 of 44 M/s Decent Industries Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 356/Ind/2023 – AY 2012-13 Sharma was engaged in providing accommodation entries

ACIT (CENTRAL UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S ARIHANT FUTURE AND COMMODITIES LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

section 14A of Rs. 5,01,070/- and made remark for the same that this should be disallowed; and that, the assessee has filed and relied upon the said audit report, thus, clearly justifying the nature of addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances

THE ACIT, CENTRAL - UJJAIN, INDORE vs. M/S ARIHANT FUTURE & COMMADITIES LTD , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

section 14A of Rs. 5,01,070/- and made remark for the same that this should be disallowed; and that, the assessee has filed and relied upon the said audit report, thus, clearly justifying the nature of addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-UJJAIN, INDORE vs. M/S ARIHANT CAPITALS MARKETS LTD , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

section 14A of Rs. 5,01,070/- and made remark for the same that this should be disallowed; and that, the assessee has filed and relied upon the said audit report, thus, clearly justifying the nature of addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances

C.I. FINLEASE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(3), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

disallowance of interest on diversion of borrowed funds.", "held": "The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the impugned order without considering the assessee's submissions. Both parties agreed that the case is fit for remand. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.", "result": "Remanded", "sections": [ "143(3)", "263", "68", "133A

RAJKUMAR GOYAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assesse is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniraj Kumar Goyal Pr. Cit-2 42, Narmda Marg Barwaha Indore Vs. Khargone (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Ackpg 1896N Assessee By Shri Ram Gilda, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.11.2023

section 139(1) of the IT. Act. In the computation of income neither you have added back nor AO has disallowed the same during assessment proceedings. Hence, Rs. 90,022/- should have been disallowed and the same should have been added back to your income. Further, A survey action u/s 133A

DCIT,CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI KRIHNA KUMAR VERMA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI (Accountant Member)

133A of the Act and appellant made voluntary disclosure of sum of Rs.4,53,43,587/- on account of excess stock and cash found during the course of search and survey. The appellant also stated that the excess stock was 9ITA No.185/Ind/2020 DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma acquired out of income earned from forward commodity trading transaction and mediation

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance. 13. Per contra, the Ld. AR initially drew our attention to certain facts with reference to the documents placed in the Paper-Book. He carried us to Page No. 40 to 43 of the Paper-Book where a layout plan of 180 units dated 02.11.2006 approved by local-authority is placed. Then, he carried us to Page

M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance. 13. Per contra, the Ld. AR initially drew our attention to certain facts with reference to the documents placed in the Paper-Book. He carried us to Page No. 40 to 43 of the Paper-Book where a layout plan of 180 units dated 02.11.2006 approved by local-authority is placed. Then, he carried us to Page