M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [2017] 87 taxmann.com 152 (Delhi - Trib.) 2. Pan AmSat International Systems Inc. [2006] 9 SOT 100 (DELHI ITAT) 3. Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co Ltd [2011] 197 Taxman 263 (Delhi) 4. New Skies Satellite BV [2016] 68 Taxmann.com 8 (Delhi) 5. Neo Sport Broadcast (P.) Ltd. [2019] 107 Taxmann.com 17 (Bombay) 6. Viacom18 Media

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE CIT (TDS), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [2017] 87 taxmann.com 152 (Delhi - Trib.) 2. Pan AmSat International Systems Inc. [2006] 9 SOT 100 (DELHI ITAT) 3. Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co Ltd [2011] 197 Taxman 263 (Delhi) 4. New Skies Satellite BV [2016] 68 Taxmann.com 8 (Delhi) 5. Neo Sport Broadcast (P.) Ltd. [2019] 107 Taxmann.com 17 (Bombay) 6. Viacom18 Media

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [2017] 87 taxmann.com 152 (Delhi - Trib.) 2. Pan AmSat International Systems Inc. [2006] 9 SOT 100 (DELHI ITAT) 3. Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co Ltd [2011] 197 Taxman 263 (Delhi) 4. New Skies Satellite BV [2016] 68 Taxmann.com 8 (Delhi) 5. Neo Sport Broadcast (P.) Ltd. [2019] 107 Taxmann.com 17 (Bombay) 6. Viacom18 Media

SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL,VIDISHA vs. ITO, VIDISHA, VIDISHA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2019-20 Subhash Chandra Ito, Agrawal, Vidisha बनाम/ Galla Mandi, Vs. Vidisha (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afrpa8769A Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri Jaideep Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2026

5. I have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. The basic issue requiring consideration is, whether the addition made under section 50C(1) can fall within the ambit of adjustments provided under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. It is noticed; the following adjustments can be made while processing the return under section

NILIMA KOTHARI,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSTT. CENTRE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

68 of the Act at Rs.24,46,824/-. The AO also made an addition for unexplained expenditure u/s 69C at Rs. 1,22,341/-. Income assessed at Rs.30,11,605/-. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) raising various legal issues and grounds on merit but failed to succeed. 3.2 Now the assesse is in appeal before

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

Section 68 of the Act on the ground that that huge outstanding balance of sundry creditors remained unpaid for the period of more than three years and that the appellant had failed to establish the need for which it had incurred such expenditure. 5. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties. We have also perused

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 or 69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections

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 or 69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections

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

68, Section 69, Section 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D of the Act. He also submitted that the revenue authorities has not pointed out that the excess stock has any nexus with any other receipts. The excess stock found during the survey operation is not separately and clearly identifiable but is part of mixed lots of stock found

ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN vs. A ONE ENCLAVE, UJJAIN

In the result, grounds taken by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1(1), V/S M/S. A One Enclave, Ujjain 3687/1, Hariphatak Road, Ujjain

68, section section 69B, section 69C or 69, section 69A, section 69B, Section 69D at the rate of section 69C or Section 69D, if thirty percent; and such income is not covered (b) the amount of income tax under clause a), the income tax with which the assessee payable shall

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 2(1), UJJAIN vs. SMT. SAROJ THAKUR, UJJAIN

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14

5. Assessee submits that the penalty of Rs. 85,98,257 imposed u/s 271D ought to be deleted. B. Business exigency for acceptance of cash has been established by assessee During the assessment proceedings, assessee was asked to produce loan confirmation letters from the persons to whom loan was given and from whom unsecured loan was availed. Summons were also

GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

1)(c) of the Act, it does not contain the ingredients of section 271AAB of the Act. Under these facts the notice is improper and is not in accordance with requirement of law. The assessing officer is expected to make his direction clear as to which clause of section 271AAB of the Act, he wishes to invoke. There

M/S PLATINUM HORAZINE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, it be held that neither the assessee has concealed the particulars of its income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of such income and therefore, the levy of penalty is unjustified and unlawful and , therefore, be cancelled. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances

DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE vs. PUNJAB RETAIL (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

5 87 90 884 Cl. Stock as on 28.09.2016 as per Books of A/C 81 8590486 1 032539221 Physical Stock as per DVO Reports 1 06 03 64 1 060364733 733 Excess Stock -241774247 -27825512 DCIT vs.M/s. Punajb Retail Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2017-18 - 9 – Less: Stock Surrendered Short/ Excess Surrendered 10 1495 122 - 101495122 140279125 73669610 Thus, in view

DCIT,CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI KRIHNA KUMAR VERMA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI (Accountant Member)

68 to 69Cas the part ofbusiness income then amended provisions of section 115BBE of the Act is not applicable. 4.3 Further placing reliance on the another judgment of the ITAT, Indore Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Shri Anoop Neema, reported as 2022 (1) TMI 683-ITAT Indore, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) find

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

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

5 of Section 43B are retrospective whereas these amendments have A.Y. 2017-18 Page 2 of 6 prospective applications and are not applicable to the instant case of the Appellant. Therefore application of amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 in provision of Section 36(1)(va) and 43B to the assessment year

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

68 are fulfilled, there is hardly any scope to invoke the provisions of section 263 of the Act, alleging introduction of unexplained funds in the form of cash credits. The burden so shifts on revenue to establish that such credits has actually come from Asseessee Company itself. However, as stated above, no evidence was available on record by which