MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,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

house property and income from other sources. The returned income was accepted by the AO while framing the assessment under section 143(3) and hence assessee’s case does not fall in the category where the regular books of accounts are mandatory. The entries of investment in real estate were found recorded in the diary and in the absence

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

house property and income from other sources. The returned income was accepted by the AO while framing the assessment under section 143(3) and hence assessee’s case does not fall in the category where the regular books of accounts are mandatory. The entries of investment in real estate were found recorded in the diary and in the absence

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

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

house property and income from other sources. The returned income was accepted by the AO while framing the assessment under section 143(3) and hence assessee’s case does not fall in the category where the regular books of accounts are mandatory. The entries of investment in real estate were found recorded in the diary and in the absence

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

undisclosed income of Rs.1,89,76,375/-'was admitted by him as having been derived from a source other than the source of income from salary, house property

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

In the result appeal filed by the revenue being I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

undisclosed expenditure of Rs.5,25,000/- and Rs.6,25,000/-. We accordingly dismiss Revenue’s Ground No.1, 2 &3 for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. 18. Ground No.4 being general in nature needs no adjudication. 19. In the result appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08 stands dismissed. 20. Now we take

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

undisclosed expenditure of Rs.5,25,000/- and Rs.6,25,000/-. We accordingly dismiss Revenue’s Ground No.1, 2 &3 for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. 18. Ground No.4 being general in nature needs no adjudication. 19. In the result appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08 stands dismissed. 20. Now we take

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

undisclosed expenditure of Rs.5,25,000/- and Rs.6,25,000/-. We accordingly dismiss Revenue’s Ground No.1, 2 &3 for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. 18. Ground No.4 being general in nature needs no adjudication. 19. In the result appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08 stands dismissed. 20. Now we take

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

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

undisclosed income. Sanjay Lunawat ITA No.396/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.32/Ind/2018 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A) who called for the remand report and after having gone through the facts/circumstances, material and submissions thereof deleted the addition. The Operative part/findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A) are reproduced hereunder: “..........The appellant during

SHRI ISHWAR PATEL,DHAR vs. THE ITO, DHAR

In the result, ground no. 4 in both the years are also

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

income from house property. (iii) The addition for undisclosed income in the form of cash deposited at Rs. 1,05,500/- and Rs. 6,62,400/- for the A.Ys

SHRI ISHWAR PATEL,DHAR vs. THE ITO, DHAR

In the result, ground no. 4 in both the years are also

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

income from house property. (iii) The addition for undisclosed income in the form of cash deposited at Rs. 1,05,500/- and Rs. 6,62,400/- for the A.Ys

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

houses of the managing director and other directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were found to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining them by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement from them by invoking the powers under

THE A C I T CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL vs. S V INFRA DEVELOPERS, BHOPAL

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

house is handed over to any customer. The volume of the material at site was also too small which cannot justify the undisclosed income of Rs.5 crores. Ld. CIT(A) after appreciating the above stated facts concluded that the addition made was purely on the basis of the statement given u/s 132(4) of the Act and deserves

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

SMT. USHADEVI MANSINGAHKA,BHILWADA vs. AYAKAR BHAWAN, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Ushadevi Mansinghka Ito-1 बनाम/ Mansinghka House, Gangapur Khandwa Vs. Chouraha Bhilwada (Rajasthan) (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aeepm1258G Appellant By Shri C.P. Rawka, Ca Revenue By Shri Puneet Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Ii, Indore, (In Short ‘Cit’), Dated 20.03.2018 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 23.12.2016 By Ito- Khandwa.

House, Gangapur Khandwa Vs. Chouraha Bhilwada (Rajasthan) (Appellant) (Revenue) PAN: AEEPM1258G Appellant by Shri C.P. Rawka, CA Revenue by Shri Puneet Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 12.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 26.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: This appeal at the instance of Assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2014-15 is directed against the order

DCIT,CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL vs. M/S SIGNATURE BUILDERS AND COLONISER, BHOPAL

In the result, both the departmental appeals i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Abxfs 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Accfs 9498 Q … Respondent

undisclosed income. [In the present case, loose papers were not even seized from assessee’s possession]. Pooja Bhatt Vs. ACIT (2000) 73 ITD 205 (Mum. Trib) Held that where document seized during search was merely a rough noting and not any evidence found that actual expenditures were not recorded in books of account, additions not justified. [In the instant case

DCIT-CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL vs. M/S SINGNATURE COLONISERS, BHOPAL

In the result, both the departmental appeals i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Abxfs 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Accfs 9498 Q … Respondent

undisclosed income. [In the present case, loose papers were not even seized from assessee’s possession]. Pooja Bhatt Vs. ACIT (2000) 73 ITD 205 (Mum. Trib) Held that where document seized during search was merely a rough noting and not any evidence found that actual expenditures were not recorded in books of account, additions not justified. [In the instant case

DCIT CENTRAL, BHOPAL vs. SHARAD SHARMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No. 29/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2010-11) It(Ss)A No. 32/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2015-16) Shri Sharad Sharma, Acit, Central, बनाम/ H-3B, Nishant Colony, Gwalior Vs. 74 Bunglows, (Stationed At Bhopal) Tt Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Amzps9791D) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

house-property, relying upon the additional evidence filed before CIT(A) without giving opportunity to AO in terms of Rule 46A(1) of Income-tax Rules, 1962. 36. The AO has made this addition in Para 13 of assessment-order on the basis of “LPS/SS-1-Page 48/49” seized during search. The AO observed that the seized document showed that rental income

DCIT CENTRAL, BHOPAL vs. SHARAD SHARMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No. 29/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2010-11) It(Ss)A No. 32/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2015-16) Shri Sharad Sharma, Acit, Central, बनाम/ H-3B, Nishant Colony, Gwalior Vs. 74 Bunglows, (Stationed At Bhopal) Tt Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Amzps9791D) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

house-property, relying upon the additional evidence filed before CIT(A) without giving opportunity to AO in terms of Rule 46A(1) of Income-tax Rules, 1962. 36. The AO has made this addition in Para 13 of assessment-order on the basis of “LPS/SS-1-Page 48/49” seized during search. The AO observed that the seized document showed that rental income