THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 23 of the Act by the Ld. AO is bad in law and thus liable to be quashed in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) as above is according to us is just and proper so as to warrant interference. With the above observations, we conclude that

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 23 of the Act by the Ld. AO is bad in law and thus liable to be quashed in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) as above is according to us is just and proper so as to warrant interference. With the above observations, we conclude that

RAJESH BAJAJ,BURHANPUR vs. THE ACIT , KHANDWA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Rajesh Kumar Bajaj Acit 13, Rajesh Industries, Vs. Khandwa Industrial Estate Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Ahnpb0036F Appellant By Shri S.S. Sheetal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashishporwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2020 O R D E R

house property”, “profits and gains of business or profession”, “capital gains” and “income from other sources”. As far as Section appearing in Section 115BBE of the Act i.e. Section Section 68

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

house property, profit and gains of business or profession or capital gains nor the income from other sources. 4.3 In view of the above, contentions of the assessee are not found tenable and therefore, amount of Rs. 58,78,145/- in form of excess stock, Rs. 52,86,831/-in form of sales and not recorded in its regular books

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

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

section 68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 was not justified and was 27 Sanjay Lunawat ITA No.396/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.32/Ind/2018 rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A) as the assessee filed requisite documentary evidences so as to justify the identity and creditworthiness of these parties and genuineness of the transactions as entered into with them. Thus, we confirm the order

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

property as exceeds such consideration shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head, "Income from other sources". Further, the NAV method as per Rule 11UA has been prescribed as the method for computing FMV of the shares for the purposes of section 56(2)(viib) of the IT Act. 1.36. Accordingly, if for the sake of argument, shares were

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

Section 143(3) for making addition, where no incriminating material relating to assessment years in question were found and seized from the premises of the assessee. Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 16. Examining the fact of instant appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08 in the light of the above judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench

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

Section 143(3) for making addition, where no incriminating material relating to assessment years in question were found and seized from the premises of the assessee. Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 16. Examining the fact of instant appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08 in the light of the above judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench

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

Section 143(3) for making addition, where no incriminating material relating to assessment years in question were found and seized from the premises of the assessee. Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 16. Examining the fact of instant appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08 in the light of the above judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench

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

68 of the Act or deny claim of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act and therefore, the addition made and confirmed is invalid. 2.7 That various adverse findings and conclusions recorded by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are factually incorrect and contrary to record, legally misconceived and untenable. 2.8 That the learned Commissioner of Income

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

68 of the Act or deny claim of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act and therefore, the addition made and confirmed is invalid. 2.7 That various adverse findings and conclusions recorded by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are factually incorrect and contrary to record, legally misconceived and untenable. 2.8 That the learned Commissioner of Income

SATYANARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14

Housing Projects Ltd – [2012] 20 taxmann.com 587 – order pronounced on 01.03.2012 – HEAD NOTE – “Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue - Assessment year 2004- 05 - Assessee sold an immovable property and claimed capital loss after indexation - Commissioner had doubts about valuation and sale consideration received but he had not examined said aspect

SHASHI PRABHA SINGHANIA,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER NEEMUCH, NEEMUCH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

property.... Rs.1,58,300/-\nBusiness income....\nRs.6,42,021/-\nIncome from other sources...\nRs.56.265/-\nRs.8,56,586/\nAdd: Long term capital gain\nas per para 6 above\nRs.21.68.388/-\nGROSS TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME\nRs.30,24,974/-\nLong term capital gain of Rs.21,68,388/- to be taxed separately\n2.12 That the aforesaid assessment order of Ld. A.O bears\nNo.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2020-21/1031627237(1)

SHRI SUKHRAM MUKATI,INDORE vs. THE ITO WD-3(3), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of Shri Sukhram Mukati and

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.409&410/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09

68 read with section 69A without verifying the facts of the case. The addition so made being illegal and wrong, the same required to be deleted. 3. That the learned CIT (A) erred in making addition of Rs. 27, 66,000 under section 69 without pinpointing any unexplained deposit. The addition so made being illegal and wrong, the same required

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

68), unexplained investment (Section 69) unexplained money etc (Section 69A) amount of investment which fully not disclosed (Section 69B) and unexplained expenditure (Section 69C). In the instant case the assessee has claimed to have earned income from unexplained source which in this case can be treated as unexplained professional receipts since the assessee is a medical practitioner. The unexplained unrecorded

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

68), unexplained investment (Section 69) unexplained money etc (Section 69A) amount of investment which fully not disclosed (Section 69B) and unexplained expenditure (Section 69C). In the instant case the assessee has claimed to have earned income from unexplained source which in this case can be treated as unexplained professional receipts since the assessee is a medical practitioner. The unexplained unrecorded

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

68), unexplained investment (Section 69) unexplained money etc (Section 69A) amount of investment which fully not disclosed (Section 69B) and unexplained expenditure (Section 69C). In the instant case the assessee has claimed to have earned income from unexplained source which in this case can be treated as unexplained professional receipts since the assessee is a medical practitioner. The unexplained unrecorded

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