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

property in cash. There was a sufficient cash balance available with the assessee. The statement of Shri Dinesh Lalwani is totally unreliable and no evidence has been put up to corroborate the evidence. The duplex flats were registered in January 2013 and the possession was handed over. There is no evidence to show that the assessee was asked to renovate

THE DCIT-2(1), INDORE vs. M/S. CENTURY 21 MALL (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Housing P.Ltd. was not proper because the same was hypothetical integration done by the assessee to cover all three separate entries into one single account in order to limit tax liability to the surrendered amount of Rs.15 crores. The AO was of Century 21 Malls P.Ltd Vs. ACIT (Indore Bench) – (9 Cross-Appeals) 7 the view that for calculating

M/S CENTURY 21 MALLS P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Housing P.Ltd. was not proper because the same was hypothetical integration done by the assessee to cover all three separate entries into one single account in order to limit tax liability to the surrendered amount of Rs.15 crores. The AO was of Century 21 Malls P.Ltd Vs. ACIT (Indore Bench) – (9 Cross-Appeals) 7 the view that for calculating

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S. CENTURE 21 MALL PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Housing P.Ltd. was not proper because the same was hypothetical integration done by the assessee to cover all three separate entries into one single account in order to limit tax liability to the surrendered amount of Rs.15 crores. The AO was of Century 21 Malls P.Ltd Vs. ACIT (Indore Bench) – (9 Cross-Appeals) 7 the view that for calculating

KALPANA GOSWAMI,BHOPAL vs. I.T.O. 1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Kalpana Goswami, Income-Tax Officer, H.No.955, Banganga, 1(1), बनाम/ North T.T.Nagar, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Awgpg5729E Assessee By Shri Milind Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2024

House property income Rs. 1,20,000/- 2. Agricultural Income Rs. 1,50,000/- 3. Cash Sales proceeds Rs. 31,50,000/- Rs. 34,20,000/- As against total receipts of Rs. 34,20,000/- from known sources of assessee’s income, there are found to be total cheques and cash credits of Rs. 52,17,300/-in her bank

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

Unexplained Cash Credits u/s. 68 on account of Unsecured Loans and Disallowance of Interest Paid thereon u/s. 69C Assessmen Assessee Department TOTAL t Year Groun Amoun Groun Unsecured Groun Disallowanc d No. t d No. Loans d No. e of Interest

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

Unexplained Cash Credits u/s. 68 on account of Unsecured Loans and Disallowance of Interest Paid thereon u/s. 69C Assessmen Assessee Department TOTAL t Year Groun Amoun Groun Unsecured Groun Disallowanc d No. t d No. Loans d No. e of Interest

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

cash creditors in the show cause notice and also discussed the financial short coming and raised doubts on the working of all these 9 cash creditors but surprisingly in the end while setting aside the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 07.03.2016 directed the assessee to examine all the unsecured loan taken by the assessee company during

ACIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY MEHTA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit (Central)-1, Shri Sanjay Mehta, बनाम/ Bhopal Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Agepm2676G Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Sanjay Mehta, Dcit (Central)-1, बनाम/ Indore Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Agepm2676G Assessee By Shri Sanjay Mehta, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 .03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

unexplained investment in the construction of residential house. We notice that in the month of May, 2012 assessee purchased a 22 years old constructed house property situated at 338, Saket Nagar, Indore. Purchase Shri Sanjay Mehta, Indore consideration as per registered sale deed is Rs.1,46,97,000/-. This property is jointly owned by assessee and his wife Rita Mehta

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

cash deposit of Rs. 5600 Crores in various bank accounts, during the assessment years 2005-06 to 2011-12. ii) On examination of stock register, purchase and sale records, it was observed that the sales have been booked as per his convenience. The figure of cash sales are suppressed so that the actual profit could be suppressed

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

cash deposit of Rs. 5600 Crores in various bank accounts, during the assessment years 2005-06 to 2011-12. ii) On examination of stock register, purchase and sale records, it was observed that the sales have been booked as per his convenience. The figure of cash sales are suppressed so that the actual profit could be suppressed

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

cash deposit of Rs. 5600 Crores in various bank accounts, during the assessment years 2005-06 to 2011-12. ii) On examination of stock register, purchase and sale records, it was observed that the sales have been booked as per his convenience. The figure of cash sales are suppressed so that the actual profit could be suppressed

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 documents statements of the firm furnished by the assessee before CIT(A) as additional evidence, without providing any opportunity to be assessing officer to rebut the same, when it is mandatory as per Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules at Ld. CIT(A) shall not take into account any evidence produced under Rule

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 documents statements of the firm furnished by the assessee before CIT(A) as additional evidence, without providing any opportunity to be assessing officer to rebut the same, when it is mandatory as per Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules at Ld. CIT(A) shall not take into account any evidence produced under Rule

HIMANSHU BOTADEARA HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

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

unexplained cash credit in the absence of proper explanation by the assessee. He has further submitted that the order passed by the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) are contrary to the record. The assessee has filed all the relevant details in response to the notice issued by the AO. This fact of reply filed by the assessee

HIMANSHU BOTADEARA HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

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

unexplained cash credit in the absence of proper explanation by the assessee. He has further submitted that the order passed by the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) are contrary to the record. The assessee has filed all the relevant details in response to the notice issued by the AO. This fact of reply filed by the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

credit and denying benefit not justified – Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 11, 12A, 68.” CIT (E) v. Patanjali Yogpeeth (NYAS) (2018) 252 Taxman 317/300 CTR 266 (Delhi)(HC). Property held for charitable purposes- Propagation of yoga falls under category of ‘Imparting of education’-Corpus donation to be excluded from total income-Higher membership fee is also donation hence cannot

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

credit and denying benefit not justified – Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 11, 12A, 68.” CIT (E) v. Patanjali Yogpeeth (NYAS) (2018) 252 Taxman 317/300 CTR 266 (Delhi)(HC). Property held for charitable purposes- Propagation of yoga falls under category of ‘Imparting of education’-Corpus donation to be excluded from total income-Higher membership fee is also donation hence cannot