ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

144 ITR 877 in the case of R.J. Trivedi (HUF) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, wherein it has been held “(i) that the accounts were properly maintained by the assessee and were checked by government authorities and there was no change of manipulation of accounts. Income-tax, wherein it has been held "(i) that the accounts were. properly maintained

SHRI MAYUR BANSAL,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the revenue in IT(SS)ANo

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

disallowances in assessment framed U/s 153A of the Act, the Id. CIT(A) should have held that none of the addition made are sustainable in the present case. 2.1 BECAUSE assessment order dated 20.12.2019 was issued manually i.e. without Document Identification Number (in short 'DIN'), accordingly, the same was liable to be held as invalid and deemed to have never

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

b). The appellant before me has also filed copy of the said reply dated 06.03.2014. On perusal of the reply it was observed that the assessee has stated that for execution of work contract the appellant has purchased plant and machinery worth Rs. 8 crores which were delivered on time but the machinery being technically operated, the appellant has also

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

b). The appellant before me has also filed copy of the said reply dated 06.03.2014. On perusal of the reply it was observed that the assessee has stated that for execution of work contract the appellant has purchased plant and machinery worth Rs. 8 crores which were delivered on time but the machinery being technically operated, the appellant has also

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

b). The appellant before me has also filed copy of the said reply dated 06.03.2014. On perusal of the reply it was observed that the assessee has stated that for execution of work contract the appellant has purchased plant and machinery worth Rs. 8 crores which were delivered on time but the machinery being technically operated, the appellant has also

RITIKA JAIN,THANE vs. ITO(IT TP), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAVAN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiritika Jain, Cit (Appeals), बना A-504, Laxmi Residency Chs Nfac, म/ Ltd, Delhi Vs. Opposite Datta Mandir Check Naka, Wagle Estate, Thane

disallowed and treated as unexplained investment made in aforesaid immovable Page 5 of 18 Ritika Jain ITA No. 632/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2015-16 property and being added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act for A.Y. 2015-16. 2.15 The d. A.O thus made addition of Rs. 10,85,000/- (supra). 2.16 That since

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

1. AO had obtained a. Copies of return of income with detailed computation of income b. Capltal account, Statement of affairs with (submission dt. ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari 27/08/2013) c. Revised return of income "with complete breakup of Rs.7,41,07,848/- (Submission dated 08/08/2014) 2. AO had enquired the following vide his (Notice dt.14/02/2014 and reply

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

1. AO had obtained a. Copies of return of income with detailed computation of income b. Capltal account, Statement of affairs with (submission dt. ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari 27/08/2013) c. Revised return of income "with complete breakup of Rs.7,41,07,848/- (Submission dated 08/08/2014) 2. AO had enquired the following vide his (Notice dt.14/02/2014 and reply

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

1. AO had obtained a. Copies of return of income with detailed computation of income b. Capltal account, Statement of affairs with (submission dt. ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari 27/08/2013) c. Revised return of income "with complete breakup of Rs.7,41,07,848/- (Submission dated 08/08/2014) 2. AO had enquired the following vide his (Notice dt.14/02/2014 and reply

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

1 kgm Silver bar was sold with a profit in the range of Rs. 500'/- to Rs 800/- during the reference year. In view of the above, gross profit earned on sale of per Silver bar is determined at Rs. 800/- In this regard the reply given for Gross Profit estimation in case of Gold KG Bars is equally applicable

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

1 kgm Silver bar was sold with a profit in the range of Rs. 500'/- to Rs 800/- during the reference year. In view of the above, gross profit earned on sale of per Silver bar is determined at Rs. 800/- In this regard the reply given for Gross Profit estimation in case of Gold KG Bars is equally applicable

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

1 kgm Silver bar was sold with a profit in the range of Rs. 500'/- to Rs 800/- during the reference year. In view of the above, gross profit earned on sale of per Silver bar is determined at Rs. 800/- In this regard the reply given for Gross Profit estimation in case of Gold KG Bars is equally applicable

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

b). observed that the appellant has interest related @ 18% whereas to other parties 12% accordingly allowed the paid related parties 12% and disallowed the (ACIT vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd. remaining interest. The appellant submitted had borrowed funds from banks and parties purpose of development its township project on which total interest pad of 1,2592,446 was debited cost

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

b). observed that the appellant has interest related @ 18% whereas to other parties 12% accordingly allowed the paid related parties 12% and disallowed the (ACIT vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd. remaining interest. The appellant submitted had borrowed funds from banks and parties purpose of development its township project on which total interest pad of 1,2592,446 was debited cost

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

b). observed that the appellant has interest related @ 18% whereas to other parties 12% accordingly allowed the paid related parties 12% and disallowed the (ACIT vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd. remaining interest. The appellant submitted had borrowed funds from banks and parties purpose of development its township project on which total interest pad of 1,2592,446 was debited cost

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

disallowances. Thus, ground nos. 1 to 5 are allowed. 10. Apropos ground No.6, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated this ground, therefore, we deem it proper that the issue be restored to the AO to verify the claim of the assessee in respect of credit of TDS. In case

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

disallowances. Thus, ground nos. 1 to 5 are allowed. 10. Apropos ground No.6, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated this ground, therefore, we deem it proper that the issue be restored to the AO to verify the claim of the assessee in respect of credit of TDS. In case

DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S MAA UMIYA AGRITECH PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit 1(1) M/S. Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Indore 119, A.B. Road, Aloo Pyaj Mandi, Vs. Indore (Appellant / (Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn8230F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

Section 145(3) are in order. v) Further on examination of books of account it was found dis under:- (a) Cash payments against purchases exceeding Rs.20-400 were made amounting to Rs. 13,92,820/- are disallowable us-40A(3). (b) Payment exceeding Rs.35,000/- were made to 2 transporters totalling to Rs. 1,50,500/- are disallowable