SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

68,34,975/- as accepted in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 did not fall within the definition of ‘undisclosed income’ as provided in Explanation to section 271AAB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961; hence, there arises no question of levy of penalty of Rs. 6,83,498/- under section 271AAB

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

section 68 is very much illegal. Ld. DR for assessee has though relied upon statements of Shri Anand Sharma and the observations made by AO in various paras of assessment-order (as narrated by us in foregoing paras of this order) but, however, could not controvert these vital points as noted by us. Page 27 of 44 M/s Decent Industries

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

search and seizure operations in case of S K Jain group. In these situations, the Courts have held that the Assessing Officer cannot sit back with folded hands and then come forward to merely reject the explanation so made, without carrying out any verification or enquiry into the material placed before him by the assessee. If the Assessing Officer harbours

MOEBIUS TRADE P LTD, MUMBAI vs. THE ADDITIONAL CIT , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimoebius Trade Pvt. Ltd. Acit-Ii Resulting Company After Bhopal Merger Of Exotic & Vs. Speciality Fats Pvt. Ltd. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aahcm 4176D Assessee By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.12.2023

68 of the Act and thereby charging the same to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. That on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the addition made is wrong and bad in law and is prayed to be deleted. 7. That the Learned CIT(A) in effect by dismissal of appeal, erred in upholding the action

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

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

seizure operation was conducted in respect of M/s. Flex Group of Companies on 23.02.2006, which led to the notice being issued under Section 153A of the Act to the Assessee. In the course of search assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer added the sum of Rs.2.32 crores, which the Assessee claim towards trade credit. The CIT(Appeal) directed deletion of this

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. AASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

search and seizure operation or even during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, in our view, the income offered by the assessee cannot be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. Therefore, as a natural corollary, section 115BBE of the Act would not be applicable. 9. Having held so, we may further add that a reading of section 115BBE

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

search and seizure operation or even during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, in our view, the income offered by the assessee cannot be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. Therefore, as a natural corollary, section 115BBE of the Act would not be applicable. 9. Having held so, we may further add that a reading of section 115BBE

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

search and seizure operation or even during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, in our view, the income offered by the assessee cannot be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. Therefore, as a natural corollary, section 115BBE of the Act would not be applicable. 9. Having held so, we may further add that a reading of section 115BBE

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, LOCATION

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

search and seizure operation or even during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, in our view, the income offered by the assessee cannot be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. Therefore, as a natural corollary, section 115BBE of the Act would not be applicable. 9. Having held so, we may further add that a reading of section 115BBE

M/S SHRI GURMUKHDAS CONTRACTORS P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-CENRRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in I

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act were carried out in the case of ‘Vaswani Group’, its Directors and their family ITA No.70/Ind/2020 & Ors.. (M/s. Shri Gurumukhdas Contractors Pvt. Ltd.) - 4 - members, their related cocnerns and other associates on 20.12.2016 where the assessee company was also covered under Section 132 of the Act. The case was centralized

NAKODA REALITIES,INDORE vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

search and seizure operation or even during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, in our view, the income offered by the assessee cannot be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. Therefore, as a natural corollary, section 115BBE of the Act would not be applicable. 9. Having held so, we may further add that a reading of section 115BBE

NAKODA REALITIES,INDORE vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

search and seizure operation or even during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, in our view, the income offered by the assessee cannot be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. Therefore, as a natural corollary, section 115BBE of the Act would not be applicable. 9. Having held so, we may further add that a reading of section 115BBE

NAKODA REALITIES,INDORE vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

search and seizure operation or even during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, in our view, the income offered by the assessee cannot be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. Therefore, as a natural corollary, section 115BBE of the Act would not be applicable. 9. Having held so, we may further add that a reading of section 115BBE

M.S, ULTIMATE BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT-2, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15 M/S. Ultimate Builders, Acit, Central-Ii, G-1, Kamdhenu Tower, E- Vs. Bhopal 2/22, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aacfu8239M

seizure in the case of the assessee was made. Thus the statement under consideration cannot be said to have been recorded during the course of search in the case of the assessee. iii. Whether the statement is of the person who is found to be in possession of the books of account and other records During the course of search

SWAPNIL RATHI,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 (1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Swapnil Rathi, Dcit-2(1) 17Bf, Scheme No.74C, Indore Vs. Vilay Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afwpr 6790 K Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.07.2023

68 amounting to Rs. 74353000 towards unexplained investment based on alleged dumb documents without any corroborating material on record. 2. The learned CIT(A) and AO failed to appreciate that there is no evidence of receipt or investment of impugned amount during the year therefore the addition is purely on guess and assumptions 3. The Appellant prays that the addition

CHIRAYU CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,BHOPAL vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradchirayu Charitable Pcit (Central), Foundation,Bhopal Indore Bhopal Highway, Bhaisakhedi, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aaaac3656P Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Advocate, Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar, Advs Date Of Hearing 05.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement .02.2021 O R D E R Per Manish Borad, Am.

seizure operation by the Investigation Unit of Income tax Department on 04/11/2016, various documents were seized from premises located at Bhainskhedi, Near Bairagarh, Bhopal-Indore Highway, Bhopal The seized documents establish that the assessee Trust had received large donations from various entities and post search enquires categorically reveal that the assessee has failed to furnish the confirmation of donations received

THE DCIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI PANKAJ KALANI, INDORE

In the result, revenue’s appeals in IT(SS)A 104

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

68,000/- on account of unexplained receipt on protective basis without appreciating the facts and evidences brought into light by the A.O. during assessment proceedings. Grounds of appeal in ITA 1045/Ind/2016-AY 2012-13-Departmental Appeal- Deepak Kalani: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in giving relief to the assessee

THE DCIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI DIPAK KALANI, INDORE

In the result, revenue’s appeals in IT(SS)A 104

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

68,000/- on account of unexplained receipt on protective basis without appreciating the facts and evidences brought into light by the A.O. during assessment proceedings. Grounds of appeal in ITA 1045/Ind/2016-AY 2012-13-Departmental Appeal- Deepak Kalani: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in giving relief to the assessee