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

SHRI SHRIRAM TOSHNIWAL,BURHANPUR vs. ACIT, KHANDWA

In the result appeal the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15 Shri Shriram Toshniwal, Asstt. Commissioner Of Prop. M/S. Gayatri Vs. Income Tax, Enterprises, Udyog Nagar, Khandwa Burhanpur (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Abxpt0602K Revenue By Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Maneesh Vaidya & Ms. Preeti Patwa, Cas Date Of Hearing 18.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2019 O R D E R

Disallowance u/s 14A 1,24,074 3. Total income assessed 4,07,27,237 4. Rounded off Rs.4,07,27,240 Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Shriram Toshiniwal 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the detailed written submission challenged the validity

M/S. PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia). The appellant therefore claims that the ld CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction in making an enhancement in the given case. The addition is therefore unjustified and uncalled for. II. Deduction u/s. 80IB(11C) – on surrender during survey u/s. 133A A survey u/s. 133A was conducted at the business premises of the assessee firm. The surrender

M/S PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia). The appellant therefore claims that the ld CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction in making an enhancement in the given case. The addition is therefore unjustified and uncalled for. II. Deduction u/s. 80IB(11C) – on surrender during survey u/s. 133A A survey u/s. 133A was conducted at the business premises of the assessee firm. The surrender

M/S. PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia). The appellant therefore claims that the ld CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction in making an enhancement in the given case. The addition is therefore unjustified and uncalled for. II. Deduction u/s. 80IB(11C) – on surrender during survey u/s. 133A A survey u/s. 133A was conducted at the business premises of the assessee firm. The surrender

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 (1), INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. (M.P), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the revenue stands

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14 Dcit-2(1), M/S. Dthri Health Care Indore Vs. Pvt. Ltd (M.P), Pu-4, Scheme No.54, Near A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aabcd4095N Revenue By Shri R.P. Mourya, Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri Sumit Neema, Sr.Adv & Gagan Tiwari, Adv Date Of Hearing 17.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2019 O R D E R

disallowance of set off of above expenses in view of section 115BBE of act and ignoring the findings in assessment order. 3. Thaqt the appellant craves right to add, delete and alter any of the grounds”. 3. Briefly stated the facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee filed his return of income for Assessment Year

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 14A, Assessee has already not disallowed by not claiming deduction of interest paid on Term Loan to Bank of Maharashtra Rs. 33,47,429/which has been debited to the capital account. Apart from above there is no other disallowable expenditure U/s 14A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 13. Please produce all the Books of accounts, vouchers and bills

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 14A, Assessee has already not disallowed by not claiming deduction of interest paid on Term Loan to Bank of Maharashtra Rs. 33,47,429/which has been debited to the capital account. Apart from above there is no other disallowable expenditure U/s 14A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 13. Please produce all the Books of accounts, vouchers and bills

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 14A, Assessee has already not disallowed by not claiming deduction of interest paid on Term Loan to Bank of Maharashtra Rs. 33,47,429/which has been debited to the capital account. Apart from above there is no other disallowable expenditure U/s 14A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 13. Please produce all the Books of accounts, vouchers and bills