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

disallowance of any loss with the income as computed under clause (a) of sub section (1) of section 115BBE came into force w.e.f 01.04.2017. Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of CIT vs Vatika Township Pvt Ltd (2014) 24 ITJ 532 (SC); (2014) 271 CTR 1: (2014) 227 Taxmann 121 has held that "An amendment made to the taxing

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)

disallowance of any losswith the income as computed under clause (a) of sub section (1) of section 115BBE came into force w.e.f 01.04.2017 (from FY 2017-18 onwads). However, the AO has applied amended provisions in FY 2016-17 applying retrospective effect of the said amendment. Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of CIT vs Vatika Township

ASHOK KUMAR MOONAT,RATLAM vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-3), INDORE, INDORE

disallowing set-off of losses and deductions. The CIT(A) granted relief on losses and deductions but upheld the AO's view on excess stock.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the excess stock was an integral part of the business income and not an unexplained investment. The provisions of Section 69B

RAMANLAL PIRODIA,RATLAM vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-3, AAYKAR BHAWAN

disallowance made by the\nAO u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE is unlawful. Further, the amended provisions\nof section 115BBE are applicable from 01.04.2017 and not from the\ndate of search.\n4.1.2 I have considered the entire matrix of the case, various case law\ncited by the appellant and also perused assessment order. It is\nundisputed fact that during the course

SHRI PREMDEEP RAJPUT,INDORE vs. THE CENTRAL CIRCLE UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Premdeep Rajput, Acit, 47-B, Sector A, Central Circle, बनाम/ Industrial Estate, Ujjain Vs. Sanwer Road, Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abvpr8534N Assessee By Shri Sushil Jethani & Shri V.K. Bhandari, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2023

disallowance made by the AO u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE is unlawful. Further, the amended provisions of section 115BBE are applicable from 01.04.2017 and not from the date of search. 4.1.2 I have considered the entire matrix of the case, various case law cited by the appellant and also perused assessment order. It is undisputed fact that during the course

THE ACIT CENTRAL-UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S ITALIAN EDIBLES P LTD, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central) M/S. Italian Edibles Pvt. Ujjain Ltd. Vs. Udhyog Nagar, Palda Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee /Respondent) Pan: Aacci 2746N Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb Ars Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023

disallowance made by the AO u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE is unlawful. Further, the amended provisions of section 115BBE are applicable from 01.04.2017 and not from the date of search. 4.1.2 I have considered the entire matrix of the case, various case law cited by the appellant and also perused assessment order. It is undisputed fact that during the course

BRIJ MOHAN DAS DEVI PRASAD,SEHORE vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2 BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S.Brij Mohandas Devi Acit/Dcit, Prasad, Central Circle 2, बनाम/ House No. 62, Ward No.18, Bhopal Station Road, Vs. Sehore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aadfb3526F Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal, Ca & Shri Mahesh Agrawal, Ca, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

disallowance made by the AO u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE is unlawful. Further, the amended provisions of section 115BBE are applicable from 01.04.2017 and not from the date of search. 4.1.2 I have considered the entire matrix of the case, various case law cited by the appellant and also perused assessment order. It is undisputed fact that during the course

THE ACIT RATLAM, RATLAM vs. SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SURANA, RATLAM

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16

disallowed both the entry there is no impact on the P & L a/c the AO erred by not taking the value of closing stock at lesser price as survey declaration added as purchases with quantity hence same has increase the quantity of the closing stock. 3. So without adjusting the value of closing stock the AO applied section 115BBE

THE ACIT RATLAM, RATLAM vs. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR SURANA, RATLAM

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16

disallowed both the entry there is no impact on the P & L a/c the AO erred by not taking the value of closing stock at lesser price as survey declaration added as purchases with quantity hence same has increase the quantity of the closing stock. 3. So without adjusting the value of closing stock the AO applied section 115BBE

LOVEKESH PATIL,BURHANPUR vs. CIT APPEALS, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Lovekesh Patil, Ito, House No. 204/1, Burhanpur बनाम/ Village - Turak Gurada, Vs. District – Burhanpur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Dhnpp1752B Assessee By Assessee In Person Revenue By Shri K.Bala Murli Krishna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024

section 68,69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and assessee total income does not include any such income. 4. The addition of Rs. 2,40,920/- made by the AO on protective basis, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because in this case the AO himself stated in the assessment order that the assessee has explained cash

ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL vs. SHRI SANJEEV AGRAWAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 The Acit (Central)-2, Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Bhopal, Mp-462011 H.No.E-2/134, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal, Mp-452016 Pan Adhpa8387N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit(Dr) For Assessee : Shri S. S. Deshpande, Ca Shri Satyajeet Chatterjee, Ca

disallowed u/s. 14A of the Act by the AO. 28. Replying to the above the learned counsel of the assessee, drawing our attention towards relevant part of the assessment order while adjudicating ground no. 12 of assessee, submitted that in para 4.8 the Ld. CIT(A) has considered entire facts and circumstances of the issue and thereafter deleted the addition

M/S. SURESH ALUMINIUM,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHOPAL

In the result Ground No.1 & 2 raised by the

Bench: Shri Manish Boradm/S Suresh Aluminium, Acit Central Circle-1, 10, Jyoti Shoping Compex, Bhopal Zone-I, Vs. Mp Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abefs0206M Assessee By S/Shri Yash Kukreja & H. Chimnani, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.08.2024 O R D E R

disallowance of Rs.3912/- Ld. A.O assessed the income at Rs.33,94,220/- and applied the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act so as to calculate the tax on surrendered income at Rs.52,25,297/-. 3.1 Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and made detailed submission referring to plethora of decisions claiming that the surrendered income is purely

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act renders the document inadmissible in the eye of law. 25 If Deponents It will not be open - Mehta Parikh & Co. v. not examined, to the revenue to CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181 their Affidavits challenge the (SC) cannot be statements made disbelieved. by the deponent in their affidavits later

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act renders the document inadmissible in the eye of law. 25 If Deponents It will not be open - Mehta Parikh & Co. v. not examined, to the revenue to CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181 their Affidavits challenge the (SC) cannot be statements made disbelieved. by the deponent in their affidavits later

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:

69B, undisclosed investment in projects of land and unexplained unsecured loan as well as unexplained cash u/s 69A of the Act. However specifically with regard to the addition of Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,00,000/- made for the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 the same is purely based on the statement given on 9 Alankar Jewellers