SMT ANJANA SINHA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

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

deemed dividend but it is a part of amount received against the advance salary and share of joint venture project. Thus Ground No.4 for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed for statistical purposes. 20. Now we take up Ground No.5 relating to addition of Rs.63,50,000/- on account of unaccounted investment u/s 69 of the Act. Brief facts

SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

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

deemed dividend but it is a part of amount received against the advance salary and share of joint venture project. Thus Ground No.4 for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed for statistical purposes. 20. Now we take up Ground No.5 relating to addition of Rs.63,50,000/- on account of unaccounted investment u/s 69 of the Act. Brief facts

SHRI RAJEEV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

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

deemed dividend but it is a part of amount received against the advance salary and share of joint venture project. Thus Ground No.4 for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed for statistical purposes. 20. Now we take up Ground No.5 relating to addition of Rs.63,50,000/- on account of unaccounted investment u/s 69 of the Act. Brief facts

SMT. MANJU SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

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

deemed dividend but it is a part of amount received against the advance salary and share of joint venture project. Thus Ground No.4 for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed for statistical purposes. 20. Now we take up Ground No.5 relating to addition of Rs.63,50,000/- on account of unaccounted investment u/s 69 of the Act. Brief facts

ACIT 5 (1), BHOPAL vs. M/S VINDHYA SOLVENT PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 taxmann.com 29), wherein it has been held that AO has to compute the FMV in accordance with the prescribed method. The Hon'ble Tribunal observed that the legislature in its wisdom has also given a formula for computation of the FMV which cannot be ignored by the, authorities below. Copy of the judgment is enclosed at Paper Book, Page

DECENT INDUSTRIES P. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Decent Industries Ito-1(2), Private Ltd, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Corporate Park, बनाम/ Db City Area Hills, Vs. Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeca6271G Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta & Shri N.K. Gupta Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

deemed fit in the interest of revenue". Thus, it is clear that the AO inspite of having issued commission u/s 131(1)(d), could not get the statement of Shri Anand Sharma recorded, confirming that he had provided any accommodation entry to the appellant company through M/s Abhishek Advisory Pvt. Limited. 5.9 At para 5(iv), the AO has mentioned

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

deemed to be the income of the assessee shall not be allowed as a deduction under any head of income. It is clear from the above referred provisions that if any income for which the assessee is unable to provide any explanation about the nature and its source then the same could be offered to tax as unexplained income which

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

deemed to be the income of the assessee shall not be allowed as a deduction under any head of income. It is clear from the above referred provisions that if any income for which the assessee is unable to provide any explanation about the nature and its source then the same could be offered to tax as unexplained income which

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

deemed to be the income of the assessee shall not be allowed as a deduction under any head of income. It is clear from the above referred provisions that if any income for which the assessee is unable to provide any explanation about the nature and its source then the same could be offered to tax as unexplained income which

RADHESHYAM AGARWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

68, section 69, section 69A,\nsection\n69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of\npenalty, in addition to tax payable under section 115BBE, a sum computed at the rate of ten\nper cent of the tax payable under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 1:15BBE\"\nThe appellant would

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

Section at that time, was updated on the portal.\nWhen the appeal order was finalized on 21.12.2023. Mr. Alok Aggarwal had\nalready proceeded on deputation to the Atal Bhujal Yojana. As a result, the\nfinal order could not come to the notice of the University.\nDuring the process of finalizing the accounts for the Financial Year 2023-24,\nthe order

THEDCIT 1(1) , INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD., INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2011-12

deemed to be not satisfactory, unless— (a) the person, being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such company also offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited; and (b) such explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer aforesaid has been found to be satisfactory: Provided further that

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

Appeal is allowed

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

deemed to have been approved on the date on which the building plan of such housing project is first approved by the local authority; (ii) the date of completion of construction of the housing project shall be taken to be the date on which the completion certificate in respect of such housing project is issued by the local authority

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

Appeal is allowed

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

deemed to have been approved on the date on which the building plan of such housing project is first approved by the local authority; (ii) the date of completion of construction of the housing project shall be taken to be the date on which the completion certificate in respect of such housing project is issued by the local authority

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

Appeal is allowed

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

deemed to have been approved on the date on which the building plan of such housing project is first approved by the local authority; (ii) the date of completion of construction of the housing project shall be taken to be the date on which the completion certificate in respect of such housing project is issued by the local authority

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

Appeal is allowed

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

deemed to have been approved on the date on which the building plan of such housing project is first approved by the local authority; (ii) the date of completion of construction of the housing project shall be taken to be the date on which the completion certificate in respect of such housing project is issued by the local authority

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

Appeal is allowed

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

deemed to have been approved on the date on which the building plan of such housing project is first approved by the local authority; (ii) the date of completion of construction of the housing project shall be taken to be the date on which the completion certificate in respect of such housing project is issued by the local authority

M/S KOHINOOR ELASTICS P LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,260/- which is bad in law and excessive. 3. The assessee company filed its return declaring total income at Rs. 8,63,43,150/-. The CPC, Bangalore processed this return and made addition of Rs. 43,00,281 under Section 36(1)(va) on account of delay in payment of employees’ contribution of provident fund / ESI. The addition