ACIT (CENTRAL) 1 INDORE , INDORE vs. SHRI KANTILAL KATARIA, RATLAM

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

undisclosed income, including that from interest on loans and advances, were duly covered from such additional income and therefore, there was no justification for making any separate estimation or addition on account of unrecorded interest on loans and advances. 3. Ground of appeal raised by Revenue for AY 2011-12 in ITA No.259/Ind/2018 1."On the facts

JCIT OSD (CENTRAL)-1, RATLAM vs. SHRI KANTILAL KATARIA, RATLAM

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

undisclosed income, including that from interest on loans and advances, were duly covered from such additional income and therefore, there was no justification for making any separate estimation or addition on account of unrecorded interest on loans and advances. 3. Ground of appeal raised by Revenue for AY 2011-12 in ITA No.259/Ind/2018 1."On the facts

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:

undisclosed income. It was also submitted on behalf of assessee that one of the partners in his statement (Pg.119 of PB-I) has stated that the cash book has been written upto 08/08/2015, the cash balances have been noted with pencil in manual cash book and the cash balance as on 08/08/2015 has been mentioned at Rs.10

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

undisclosed income in return of income for AY 2017-18. However, the AO required the assessee to separately credit the excess stock of Rs. 1,41,75,568/- in P/L account but the same was not done by him. The AO therefore, considering the excess stock as unexplained investment made addition of Rs. 1,41,75,568/- to the income

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

undisclosed income in return of income for AY 2017-18. However, the AO required the assessee to separately credit the excess stock of Rs. 1,41,75,568/- in P/L account but the same was not done by him. The AO therefore, considering the excess stock as unexplained investment made addition of Rs. 1,41,75,568/- to the income

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

income tax proceedings, still assessment cannot be made on the basis of imagination and guess work. It has been held in the case of Umacharan Saha & Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in the case of Dhira Lal Girdharilal

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

undisclosed income in return of income for AY 2017-18. However, the AO required the assessee to separately credit the excess stock of Rs. 1,41,75,568/- in P/L account but the same was not done by him. The AO therefore, considering the excess stock as unexplained investment made addition of Rs. 1,41,75,568/- to the income

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

AKASH JAIN,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL-1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiakash Jain, Dcit (Central-1) बनाम/ B-244, Shahpura, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessees By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

disallowance’ made by AO does not fit in the definition of “undisclosed income”. Needless to mention that the definition of “undisclosed

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

undisclosed income in return of\nincome for AY 2017-18. However, the AO required the assessee to\nseparately credit the excess stock of Rs. 1,41,75,568/- in P/L account\nbut the same was not done by him. The AO therefore, considering the\nexcess stock as unexplained investment made addition of Rs.\n1,41,75,568/- to the income

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

undisclosed income in return of\nincome for AY 2017-18. However, the AO required the assessee to\nseparately credit the excess stock of Rs. 1,41,75,568/- in P/L account\nbut the same was not done by him. The AO therefore, considering the\nexcess stock as unexplained investment made addition of Rs.\n1,41,75,568/- to the income

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

undisclosed income appearing in the profit and loss account should be removed as it is not a business income and the alleged amount should be directly added to the total income of the assessee as ‘Income from other sources’. He also observed that by making these changes in the trading account the net profit from the business will comes

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

undisclosed income appearing in the profit and loss account should be removed as it is not a business income and the alleged amount should be directly added to the total income of the assessee as ‘Income from other sources’. He also observed that by making these changes in the trading account the net profit from the business will comes

M/S NIKHIL ESTATE P LTD,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE (3) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Nikhil Estate Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Central)-3 M-102, Mezzanine, Floor, Indore Dhan Trident, P. No.B-3 Pu- Vs. 4, Sch. No.54, Vijay Nagar Square, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 8056 D Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.06.2023

undisclosed Page 8 of 30 Nikhil Estate Pvt. Ltd. Page 9 of 30 income in return of income for AY 2017-18. However, the AO required the assessee to separately credit the excess stock of Rs. 1,41,75,568/- in P/L account but the same was not done by him. The AO therefore, considering the excess stock as unexplained

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

undisclosed income in return of income for AY 2017-18. However, the AO required the assessee to separately credit the excess stock of Rs. 1,41,75,568/- in P/L account but the same was not done by him. The AO therefore, considering the excess stock as unexplained investment made addition of Rs. 1,41,75,568/- to the income

M/S. KANAK AGRO INFRASTRUCTURE,KHANDWA vs. THE ITO WARD-1, KHANDWA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

undisclosed income attributable to excess cash of Rs. 9,68,572/- shall attract section 115BBE. This Ground is therefore, partly, allowed. This identical ground in ITA No.911/Ind/2019 is also partly allowed in view of no change in circumstances. 25. Now we take up Ground No. 3 which relates to the disallowance

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

undisclosed income attributable to excess cash of Rs. 9,68,572/- shall attract section 115BBE. This Ground is therefore, partly, allowed. This identical ground in ITA No.911/Ind/2019 is also partly allowed in view of no change in circumstances. 25. Now we take up Ground No. 3 which relates to the disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

Disallowances/ Additions Amount (in Rs.) Page 39 of 116 ITANo.794/Ind/2018 & IT(SS)A No.14 & 07/Ind/2022 Ritesh Jain & M.P. Agro Nutri Food Ltd. 1 Addition on account of unsecured 3,40,00,000/- loan being accommodation entry taken in the company M/s. M.P. Agro Nutri Foods Ltd. 2 Addition on account of undisclosed 30,60,000/- interest income

THE DCIT CENTRAL-(1), INDORE vs. M/S AYUSH AJAY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. , INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanii.T(Ss).A. Nos.14 To 16/Ind/2018 (Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10)

undisclosed income. Thus , while in view of the mandate of sub-section (1) of section 153A of the Act, in every case where the is a search or requisition, the Assessment Officer is obliged to issue notice to such person to furnish returns if income for the six year preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year In which