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

10 and the same is acceptable to the learned AO to the satisfaction of the learned AO, the same is required to be compared with the valuation arrived at as per Rule 11UA and the higher of the two is to be considered as the FMV for the purpose of the said section. 1.24. Your Honour will appreciate that

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

23. On having gone through the paper book, we note that the assessee had submitted complete details of purchases and sales in quantity and value and no discrepancy or error has been pointed out by the Assessing Officer, either in the assessment order or in the remand report. The purchases recorded in the books of account are the disclosed/accounted purchases

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

23 of 26 Shri Rupesh Vyas Assessment year 2015-16 or could not have been privy to the information or modus adopted. In our considered view, what is important is that it is the assessee who has to prove the claim to be genuine in terms of Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, the assessee cannot escape from

M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 80-IB(10); they were released after 31.03.2012. In such a case, the non-construction Page 17 of 38 D.K. Construction ITA No.34 to 37 & 24/Ind/2022 - AY. 2012-13 to 2014-15 & 2017-18 of those 2 units was not within the control of assessee. As a matter of fact, we even do not find any mala fide

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 80-IB(10); they were released after 31.03.2012. In such a case, the non-construction Page 17 of 38 D.K. Construction ITA No.34 to 37 & 24/Ind/2022 - AY. 2012-13 to 2014-15 & 2017-18 of those 2 units was not within the control of assessee. As a matter of fact, we even do not find any mala fide

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 80-IB(10); they were released after 31.03.2012. In such a case, the non-construction Page 17 of 38 D.K. Construction ITA No.34 to 37 & 24/Ind/2022 - AY. 2012-13 to 2014-15 & 2017-18 of those 2 units was not within the control of assessee. As a matter of fact, we even do not find any mala fide

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 80-IB(10); they were released after 31.03.2012. In such a case, the non-construction Page 17 of 38 D.K. Construction ITA No.34 to 37 & 24/Ind/2022 - AY. 2012-13 to 2014-15 & 2017-18 of those 2 units was not within the control of assessee. As a matter of fact, we even do not find any mala fide

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 80-IB(10); they were released after 31.03.2012. In such a case, the non-construction Page 17 of 38 D.K. Construction ITA No.34 to 37 & 24/Ind/2022 - AY. 2012-13 to 2014-15 & 2017-18 of those 2 units was not within the control of assessee. As a matter of fact, we even do not find any mala fide

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)

23, Gajanand Complex Vs. Bada Sarafa Indore (M.P.) 452 001 PAN-ABBPV 3565D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Respondent by Shri Anil Kamal Garg and Shri Arpit Gaur, ARs Date of hearing 16.11.2022 Date of pronouncement 10.02.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG,JM: This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of Learned

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal isallowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

10." Further, as per CBDT Instruction dated 10.01.2018, section 68 of the Act can be invoked only when there is credit of a sum during the year in the books of accounts maintained by the taxpayer. The relevant extract of the said CBDT Instruction is as under(copy enclosed): "Assessing Officers should follow the sequence as noted below

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

10,011/- as undisclosed business income assessable under the head ‘business’ and other two sums under section 69. The business income including application of section 40(b) has to be considered accordingly. For calculation of income in view of our above observations, we restore the matter to the file of AO. (d) Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal Vs. DCIT, Ahemadabad

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

23,11,648/- इसमV से 6दनांक 01/04/2018 से 30/09/2018 तक WवXय Lकया गया "को!ट का मूAय D. 5,36,32,143/-, इस "कार 6दनांक 30.09.2018 को W.I.P D. 10,57,26,394/- है। अतः Project मV WIP से संबं"धत अंतर क\ रा]श D. 2,01,63,606/- के बारे मV Nप!ट"करण दे

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

23-03-2012 through Vishal Vijay Shah. The appellant sold the same shares on 10-02-2014 & 12-02- 20014 at Rs.66,61,579/-. The appellant earned the long term capital gain on the above transaction and claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the LT. Act. The AO considered the amount of Rs.66,28,161/- as income from other sources

AABHUSHAN,DHAMNOD, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO DHAR, DHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaabhushan Dhamnod Ito, Dhar 1St Floor, Ganpati Market Ab Road Dhamnod Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abgfa0812K Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & Shri S.N. Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024 O R D E R

section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where identity, genuineness and creditworthiness stands established. Thus, there was no reason for the Ld. CIT(A) to take a different view in assessment year under appeal i.e., 2009-2010. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that initial burden upon the assessee to prove

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

10/- each at a premium of Rs. 990/- without justifying such high premium. (v) Thereafter, in Para 7, the AO has taken into account the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in Durga Prasad More 214 ITR 801, Sumati Dayal 80 Taxmann 89, McDowell Vs. CTO and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in NR Portfolio 2014 42 Taxmann.com

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3 (1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. ENTERTAINMENT AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, 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