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

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

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

M/S PUMARTH PROPERTIES & HOLDING (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of 30% is clear. The amendment in section 115BBE(2) w.e.f. 01.04.2017 is only clarificatory and to avoid litigation. The income surrendered by the appellant during the course of the search has the character of items included in section 115BBE and therefore will be chargeable at the flat rate

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

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

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

69B of the Act cannot be made applicable as primary condition for invoking the provision is that asset should be separately identifiable and it should have independent physical existence on its own. Further, the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of ACIT vs. Anoop Neema (supra) has also considered an identical issue as under: “7. We have heard rival

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

69B) and unexplained expenditure (Section 69C). In the instant case the assessee has claimed to have earned income from unexplained source which in this case can be treated as unexplained professional receipts since the assessee is a medical practitioner. The unexplained unrecorded income of Rs.7 crores was claimed to be invested in hundies i.e. short ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod

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

69B) and unexplained expenditure (Section 69C). In the instant case the assessee has claimed to have earned income from unexplained source which in this case can be treated as unexplained professional receipts since the assessee is a medical practitioner. The unexplained unrecorded income of Rs.7 crores was claimed to be invested in hundies i.e. short ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod

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

69B) and unexplained expenditure (Section 69C). In the instant case the assessee has claimed to have earned income from unexplained source which in this case can be treated as unexplained professional receipts since the assessee is a medical practitioner. The unexplained unrecorded income of Rs.7 crores was claimed to be invested in hundies i.e. short ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod

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

M/S A-ONE ENCLAVE,UJJAIN vs. THE PR.CIT, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13

Disallowance of Remuneration paid to partners:- On the perusal of computation of income, it is found that the assessee firm has claimed deduction for remuneration to the partners amounting to Rs.9,00,000/-. The assessee was asked to explain the justification of claiming such higher remuneration while there is a loss to the assessee. In the reply

SHRI VARAD MEHTA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Shri Varad Mehta, Dcit 1(1), B-4/301, Paras City, Vs. Bhopal Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aflpm6733Q Revenue By Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Girish Agrawal,Ca Date Of Hearing 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2018 O R D E R

disallowed in returned income cannot be held to be retrospective in operation - Held, yes _ Whether fiction created under sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B

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