THE ACIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR SETHI, INDORE

In the result appeal filed by the revenue being I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

133A of the Act on 2.5.2006 wherein it was noticed that some of the group companies are alleged to be in the practice of providing accommodation entries. Ld.A.O gave his finding of fact that the alleged cash creditor companies which gave loan to the assessee were not part of the group of companies held by the Lunkard Group but they

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

5 of 29 Supremo India Ltd. Page 6 of 29 the application of section 698 which create a deeming fiction not only to charge the asset as income but also deems such income to be of the FY in which they are found. Hence, offering the Income in ROI suo-moto for any FY without any evidence of year

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. LIFE STYLE INFRATECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

properties, prices received, name, address, PAN of the buyers, etc. but the AO has not made any enquiry from any single buyer. Then, regarding Parking/Club/MPEB charges, the assessee’s explanation that they were charged from some buyers and not charged from all buyers, is also plausible particularly when the assessee has been making different ffers to attract buyers. Then

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

5 of this Release-Deed, it is clearly mentioned that total 33 Units were held by local-authority under mortgage in terms of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Coloniser Regulations, 1998; out of which 31 plots were released from time to time and the remaining two plots, being No. 151 and 152, were released on 30.05.2012 / 26.02.2015. Ld. AR also carried

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

5 of this Release-Deed, it is clearly mentioned that total 33 Units were held by local-authority under mortgage in terms of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Coloniser Regulations, 1998; out of which 31 plots were released from time to time and the remaining two plots, being No. 151 and 152, were released on 30.05.2012 / 26.02.2015. Ld. AR also carried

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

5 of this Release-Deed, it is clearly mentioned that total 33 Units were held by local-authority under mortgage in terms of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Coloniser Regulations, 1998; out of which 31 plots were released from time to time and the remaining two plots, being No. 151 and 152, were released on 30.05.2012 / 26.02.2015. Ld. AR also carried

M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

5 of this Release-Deed, it is clearly mentioned that total 33 Units were held by local-authority under mortgage in terms of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Coloniser Regulations, 1998; out of which 31 plots were released from time to time and the remaining two plots, being No. 151 and 152, were released on 30.05.2012 / 26.02.2015. Ld. AR also carried

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

5 of this Release-Deed, it is clearly mentioned that total 33 Units were held by local-authority under mortgage in terms of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Coloniser Regulations, 1998; out of which 31 plots were released from time to time and the remaining two plots, being No. 151 and 152, were released on 30.05.2012 / 26.02.2015. Ld. AR also carried

RAJESH BAJAJ,BURHANPUR vs. THE ACIT , KHANDWA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Rajesh Kumar Bajaj Acit 13, Rajesh Industries, Vs. Khandwa Industrial Estate Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Ahnpb0036F Appellant By Shri S.S. Sheetal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashishporwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2020 O R D E R

133A of the Act was purely a business income liable to normal rate of tax and both the lower authorities have erred in charging it with the tax rate @60% applying the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act by treating the alleged undisclosed income as income referred in Section 68, Section 69, Section

SHRI NARAYAN DAS TOLANI,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 13.03.2007, in which the assessee surrendered undisclosed income stating that the assessee would declare the income surrendered by him, but assessee retracted and Page 3 of 16 Shri Narayan Das Tolani vs. ITO, 3(1), Bhopal I.T.A.No. 834/Ind/2016 A.Y.2007-08 did not disclose

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

133A of the Act in the case of assessee. The assessment has been completed u/s 148/143(3) of the act vide order dated 19.12.2018………….” 5. In the instant case, no notice u/s 153A or 153C were issued. Assessment proceedings u/s 147 rws 143(3) were completed for AY 2010-11 on 29.12.2017. These proceedings for AY 2010-11 were centralized

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

133A of the Act in the case of assessee. The assessment has been completed u/s 148/143(3) of the act vide order dated 19.12.2018………….” 5. In the instant case, no notice u/s 153A or 153C were issued. Assessment proceedings u/s 147 rws 143(3) were completed for AY 2010-11 on 29.12.2017. These proceedings for AY 2010-11 were centralized

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

House property, Share of profit and income from other sources. Survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act was carried out at the premises of M/s Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre (In short BHRC) on 24.09.2011. During the course of survey proceedings certain discrepancies were noticed. Incriminating material in the form of Hundis were found and impounded. The assessee in his individual

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

House property, Share of profit and income from other sources. Survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act was carried out at the premises of M/s Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre (In short BHRC) on 24.09.2011. During the course of survey proceedings certain discrepancies were noticed. Incriminating material in the form of Hundis were found and impounded. The assessee in his individual

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

House property, Share of profit and income from other sources. Survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act was carried out at the premises of M/s Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre (In short BHRC) on 24.09.2011. During the course of survey proceedings certain discrepancies were noticed. Incriminating material in the form of Hundis were found and impounded. The assessee in his individual

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

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

133A was carried out at the premises and Buidling Projects run by the assessee-company. Subsequently, a search u/s. 132 was also IT(SS)A No.83,84,86,87,90,91,109,110 & ITA, No.922 &923/Ind/2019 AG8 Ventures Ltd. carried on 29-31 January 2014 at the business place of assessee company and residential premises of Directors. Various books

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

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

133A was carried out at the premises and Buidling Projects run by the assessee-company. Subsequently, a search u/s. 132 was also IT(SS)A No.83,84,86,87,90,91,109,110 & ITA, No.922 &923/Ind/2019 AG8 Ventures Ltd. carried on 29-31 January 2014 at the business place of assessee company and residential premises of Directors. Various books

M.S, ULTIMATE BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT-2, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15 M/S. Ultimate Builders, Acit, Central-Ii, G-1, Kamdhenu Tower, E- Vs. Bhopal 2/22, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aacfu8239M

133A constituted valid piece of evidence, which could be used in assessing undisclosed income. However, the two taken together have to be read as a whole. In the instant case, the assessee has clearly linked the unaccounted income of concern to undisclosed income in statement u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and hence, such statement is, binding