RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 68 of the Act or deny claim of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act and therefore, the addition

M/S NIKHIL ESTATE P LTD,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE (3) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Nikhil Estate Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Central)-3 M-102, Mezzanine, Floor, Indore Dhan Trident, P. No.B-3 Pu- Vs. 4, Sch. No.54, Vijay Nagar Square, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 8056 D Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.06.2023

68. The word ‘valuable’ has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as follows: - “Valuable adjective. Worth a good price; having financial or market value.” 69. The word ‘valuable’ has been defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as follows: - The word ‘valuable’ has been defined as again an adjective. “worth a great deal of money. Very useful or important

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

68. The word ‘valuable’ has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as follows: - “Valuable adjective. Worth a good price; having financial or market value.” 69. The word ‘valuable’ has been defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as follows: - The word ‘valuable’ has been defined as again an adjective. “worth a great deal of money. Very useful or important

SMT. ARCHANA CHANDAK,INDORE vs. ITO 3(2), INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal isallowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 28.12.2017 as the assessee did not submit any documentary evidence in respect of the source of cash deposits and the declaration signed by the parents of the assessee stating the fact of gifting Rs.5 Lakhs each to their daughters, being the assessee herein since doubted. The same was, in turn, confirmed

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act or deny claim of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act and therefore, the addition

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

exemption under section 11 of the Act in the\nlight of the relevant provisions of the Act after affording proper\nopportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly both the\nappeals of the Revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes.”\n(b)\nCIT Vs. Nagendra Prasad (2023) 156 taxmann.com 19 (High Court\nof Patna):\n\"1. The appeal is filed against

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

68 of the Act in respect of share application money received ITO, Ward- 4(2), Jaipur vs M/s. Skyways Industrial Estate Company Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur by the assessee from M/s. Abhishek Advisory Pvt. Ltd. by referring to the search and survey action carried out by the DGIT (Inv.) Kolkata, in para 3.1 as under:- ''3(1). A search and survey

INCOME TAX OFFICER INDORE 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

section 68 of the 1.T. Act.\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in\nadmitting additional evidences at the time of appeal ignoring the fact that it\ndoes not fulfil the conditions laid down in Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962\nas sufficient opportunities were provided to the assessee during

INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

section 68 of the 1.T. Act.\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in\nadmitting additional evidences at the time of appeal ignoring the fact that it\ndoes not fulfil the conditions laid down in Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962\nas sufficient opportunities were provided to the assessee during

M/S. MADHYA PRADESH CRICKET ASSOCIATION,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed and consequently the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13 Madhya Pradesh Cricket Dcit, 1(1), Association Indore बनाम/ Holkar Stadium, Vs. 7, Race Course Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaatg3527C Appellant By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Shri Arpit Gaur (Ar) Revenue By Shri Lal Chand (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.06.2017

exemption under sections 11 & 12 to only those entities which are either carrying out trade, commerce or business; or which are rendering any services in relation to any trade, 20 M.P. Cricket Association commerce or business by wearing a mask or device to hide their true purpose of existence. (iv) In view of the amended definition of expression charitable purpose

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

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

section 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 learned CIT(A) has erred in holding the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted

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

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

section 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 learned CIT(A) has erred in holding the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted

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

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

section 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 learned CIT(A) has erred in holding the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted

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

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

section 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 learned CIT(A) has erred in holding the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted

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

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

section 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 learned CIT(A) has erred in holding the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted

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

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

section 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 learned CIT(A) has erred in holding the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted

M/S. FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD.,DHAR vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 M/S. Flexituff International Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd, Vs. Income Tax-1, C-41-50, Sez, Sector-3, Indore Pithampur, Dist. Dhar (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Aaacn5986H Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit Assessee By Shri Manjit Sachdeva & Avinash Gaur, Advocates Date Of Hearing 26.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 14.05.2019 O R D E R

section 10A has been allowed after setting of brought forward losses. Hence, the assessee’s claims of exemption u/s 10A for Rs.12,51,79,200/- for the A.Y. 2012-13 should be allowed after setting off brought forward losses of earlier years. The correct calculation of carry forward of losses and exemption u/s 10A should be as under:- A.Yr. Gross

ITO 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S AMKAY COLONISERS & BUILDERS P LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ito 1(1) M/S. Amkay Colonisers & Bhopal Builders Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 16, Amar Stambh, Z-1, M.P. Nagar Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue ) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaeca 6272 F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.12.2022

section 68 in favour of the assessee, where the applicant companies had substantial means to invest in company issuing shares. In the instant case, RCSPL, which has advanced money pursuant to a JV agreement had substantial means to give an advance to the Appellant company. The relevant part of the judgment in the case of Goodview Trading (P.) Limited (supra