ANJU JAIN, LR SUSHIL JAIN,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

1) regarding the quantum of penalty. The primary condition for levy of penalty is the existence of undisclosed income as per the disclosure made by the assessee under section 132(4). The term ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in Explanations to section 271AAB. Therefore, as per the definition provided in the Explanation, the undisclosed income may have various forms

ANJU JAIN, LR SHRI SUSHIL JAIN ,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

1) regarding the quantum of penalty. The primary condition for levy of penalty is the existence of undisclosed income as per the disclosure made by the assessee under section 132(4). The term ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in Explanations to section 271AAB. Therefore, as per the definition provided in the Explanation, the undisclosed income may have various forms

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 41(1) of the Income-Tax Act] 1961. Likewise, in reply to the question No. 10, the appellant had declared undisclosed income to the extent of Rs.65,76,375/- on account of unexplained investment in certain property at Surat owned by one of the group companies namely M/s. Bhatia International Ltd.. Likewise, in reply to question No. 1

SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

1) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a case where search has been initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of July, 2012 but before the date on which the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Bill, 2016 receives the assent of the President, the assessee shall

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

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

house property and interest. The assessee is a partner in M/s Truba Services, M/s Hotel Sanchi Regency and M/s Sharad Sharma. There was a search and seizure operation under section IT(SS) No.30 & 31/Ind/2023 ITA (SS) No.305/Ind/2023 Shailendra Sharma 132(1

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)

Housing (2015) 374 ITR 645 (Mum.) (v) DCIT V/s Kalani Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 27 TTJ 286 (Trib. Indore) (vi) Anant Steel Pvt. Ltd. V/s ACIT (2016) 28 ITJ 47 (Trib. Indore.) “4.5 The appellant has also relied on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of ACIT vs Sar Yeash Co. (P) Ltd held

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

132 of the Act at Ramani Group. It is also not in dispute that various loose papers alleged to be incriminating in nature were found during the course of search. It is a normal procedure that subsequent to search all the cases relating to the group are centralized with central circle for making assessment by this process of centralization

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

132 of the Act at Ramani Group. It is also not in dispute that various loose papers alleged to be incriminating in nature were found during the course of search. It is a normal procedure that subsequent to search all the cases relating to the group are centralized with central circle for making assessment by this process of centralization

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

house property, profit and gains of business or profession or capital gains nor the income from other sources. 4.3 In view of the above, contentions of the assessee are not found tenable and therefore, amount of Rs. 58,78,145/- in form of excess stock, Rs. 52,86,831/-in form of sales and not recorded in its regular books

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

CHIRAYU CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,BHOPAL vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradchirayu Charitable Pcit (Central), Foundation,Bhopal Indore Bhopal Highway, Bhaisakhedi, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aaaac3656P Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Advocate, Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar, Advs Date Of Hearing 05.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement .02.2021 O R D E R Per Manish Borad, Am.

132 of the Act. The only reason for which Ld. PCIT was not satisfied with the genuineness of the donation was mainly the income shown by these donors which was not commensurate with the huge donation given by them. Though the assessee had given detailed submission with regard to donation have also submitted that the department was having all information

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

132 amount as advanced to the assessee 6 The IESM Academy [PAN: AAEFT4206F] – Addition of Rs. 32,00,000/- 6.1 Copy of ledger account of the creditor in the books of the assessee 133- 134 6.2 Copy of ledger account of the assessee in the books of the creditor 135- 136 6.3 Copy of acknowledgment of income-tax return along

SMT SADHNA VOHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO 1(3), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

132 or requisition is made under section 132A and in respect of such assessment year— (a) no return of income has been furnished by such other person and no notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under

BIRENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,GWALIOR vs. ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

House No.103, Mastura, Bhopal Dabra, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA. No 542/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2009-10 PAN : BHGPK0249B Shri Birendra Kumar Sharma, V/s DCIT 1(1), 2, Tiwari Mohalla Bijakpur, Bhopal Dabra, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT Assessee by Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv with Shri Gagan Tiwary, Advocate Date of Hearing 14.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement

SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA,DABRA vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

House No.103, Mastura, Bhopal Dabra, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA. No 542/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2009-10 PAN : BHGPK0249B Shri Birendra Kumar Sharma, V/s DCIT 1(1), 2, Tiwari Mohalla Bijakpur, Bhopal Dabra, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT Assessee by Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv with Shri Gagan Tiwary, Advocate Date of Hearing 14.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHARY,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

House No.103, Mastura, Bhopal Dabra, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA. No 542/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2009-10 PAN : BHGPK0249B Shri Birendra Kumar Sharma, V/s DCIT 1(1), 2, Tiwari Mohalla Bijakpur, Bhopal Dabra, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT Assessee by Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv with Shri Gagan Tiwary, Advocate Date of Hearing 14.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement