GOVIND HARINARAYAN AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38) of Rs.8,29,555/- is a sham transaction, by applying test of human

SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38) of Rs.8,29,555/- is a sham transaction, by applying test of human

SAPAN SHAH,INDORE vs. ACIT-4(I), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38) of Rs.8,29,555/- is a sham transaction, by applying test of human

PRAYANK JAIN,INDORE vs. ACIT5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38) of Rs.8,29,555/- is a sham transaction, by applying test of human

DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38) of Rs.8,29,555/- is a sham transaction, by applying test of human

MANISH GOVIND AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38) of Rs.8,29,555/- is a sham transaction, by applying test of human

ITO 1(3), AYKAR BHAWAN ANNEX, INDORE vs. M/S. FAIRDEAL ENGINEERING & BODY BUILDING CO. (P) LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 68 i.e. genuineness is also proved and the Ld. AO has no basis to upset the same. Regarding creditworthiness of the lender-company, the Ld. AO has observed that the operational revenue was less; the reserve & surplus and fixed assets have declined during the relevant previous year. On such basis, the Ld. AO inferred that the lender-company

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE vs. COMMANDER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of assessee are dismissed

68,577/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 29.06.2021. The AO issued show cause notice u/s 142(1) requiring the assessee to submit clarification/show cause as to why disallowance of claim of depreciation on goodwill as\na result of amalgamation/merger should not be made. The assessee filed its reply

MALWA OXYGEN AND INDUSTRIAL GASES PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECTOR C, INDUSTRIAL AREA vs. AO-RATLAM/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, RATLAM/DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section\n35(2AB) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the disallowed capital Research\nand development expenses be capitalised and consequent depreciation be\ndirected to be allowed.\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A)\nerred in not allowing the consequent deductions and allowances permissible\nunder the Act and assessing the correct

THE DCIT, 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. MODERN LABORATORIES, INDORE

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ ./ ./ I.T.A. No.277 & Co.16/Ind/2014 ./ "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09

68 of the Act in the light of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Rathi Finlease Limited (supra). Accordingly, Ground No. 2 of Cross Objection of the assessee is therefore, dismissed. 26. Ground No. 3 related sustenance of disallowance of amount of interest of Rs. 49,585 under section

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

depreciation at Rs.1,53,066/- to be carry forward for set up in subsequent years. 3. After passing of the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, Ld. Pr. CIT examined the assessment records and documents filed by the assessee and notice that the M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. assessment order is prima facie, erroneous and prejudicial

M/S. FROLIC REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(3), INDORE

In the result, these three appeals of by different assessees in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11 Avocado Trading Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company, Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4206K Assessment Year: 2010-11 Aspirant Mercantile Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company,Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4207J

Section 68 on the alleged ground that it is unexplained cash credit. 2. The Appellant prays that the said addition be deleted. GROUND 2: ADDITION OF TRADE ADVANCES AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT 1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in the upholding the action of the AO in making addition

M/S. AVOCADO TRADING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(3), INDORE

In the result, these three appeals of by different assessees in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11 Avocado Trading Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company, Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4206K Assessment Year: 2010-11 Aspirant Mercantile Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company,Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4207J

Section 68 on the alleged ground that it is unexplained cash credit. 2. The Appellant prays that the said addition be deleted. GROUND 2: ADDITION OF TRADE ADVANCES AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT 1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in the upholding the action of the AO in making addition

M/S. ASPIRANT MERCANTILE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(3), INDORE

In the result, these three appeals of by different assessees in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11 Avocado Trading Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company, Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4206K Assessment Year: 2010-11 Aspirant Mercantile Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company,Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4207J

Section 68 on the alleged ground that it is unexplained cash credit. 2. The Appellant prays that the said addition be deleted. GROUND 2: ADDITION OF TRADE ADVANCES AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT 1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in the upholding the action of the AO in making addition

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

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

68 cannot apply to a 'journal entry' recorded in\nbooks of account, and (iii) the admission/confession made by counsel to AO\nto tax the impugned sum of Rs.5,42,75,671/- in current year is not binding\nupon assessee. On a careful consideration, we find a strong merit in the first\ncontention raised by Ld. AR. We find that