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 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D." 10. In light of above, given the fact that the AO has invoked the provisions of section 11BBE in the instant case, the provisions of sub-section (2) to section 11BBE are equally applicable. The amendment

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. Further that the Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 11UA unambiguously provides that fair market value of unquoted equity share for the purposes of sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Explanation to Clause (viib) of Subsection (2) of Section 56 shall be the value/valuation on the date of such unquoted equity shares as determined in the following manner

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 Income tax Act, 1961. As the assessee has deliberately and willfully concealed its unaccounted income, and furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are initiated for concealment and furnishing the inaccurate particulars also initiated. Addition: Rs. 90,69,199/- Page 10 of 26

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

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 । उ^र उ?त अंतर क\ रा]श D. 2,01,63,606/- Books क\ figure एवं valuation Report के अंतर पर आधा_रत है । य`यWप valuation Report अपने आप मV estimated figure

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

26-06-2015 had approved the order of the Ld CIT[A] and held that [Refer last four line of Para 24 on Page No. 18 of the order]: "For the purpose of making addition on account of undisclosed stock, first the quantity I weight of such undisclosed stock has to be determined and then market value of this undisclosed

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

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

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

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

10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. xi) With so much of evidence against the assessee, the onus was on assessee to prove that his tral1sactions were genuine and that he had not availed benefit of the aforementioned scheme to convert black money into white. xii) In Sumati Dayal vs. Commissioner of Income tax - the Supreme Court observed

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

26 of 53 ITANo.344/Ind/2023 Abhushan hence, is equally binding on this Court. The said decision though rendered under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, would not make any difference. Section 68 of the Act was introduced for the first time in the Act and there was no corresponding provision in the 1922 Act. However, as per settled legal position

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 ITO 2 (1) INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S HI LINK CITY HOMES P LTD,, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, 2(1) M/S. Hi Link City Homes Indore Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 06, Sadhna Nagar, Vs. Airport Road, Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aacch5920K Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani & Shri Pankaj Shah, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2022

26 years. This company is regularly assessed to tax and has also been subjected to scrutiny assessment and the additions made thereon have traveled before Coordinate Bench Ahmedabad in the case of M/s. Jayant Security and Finance Ltd. in ITANo.753/Ahd/2012. We also find that the loan taken from alleged company has been treated as genuine and the additions made

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

TYHE ITO-4(5), INDORE vs. M/S. URVASHI WORLD WIDE P. LTD., INDORE

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13

26 of PB. It is settled law that genuine loans taken in earlier year from identified persons appearing as opening balances in audited books of account cannot be taxed in subsequent year u/s 68 of the Act because such amount was not found credited in the books of the assessee during the year under consideration. Kind attention is invited

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

The appeal of the assesse is disposed off in terms of

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

section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. The Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Sky Builders & Developers reported in 14 taxmann.78 held that where the assessee sold plots to respective customers by registering sale deed and thereafter constructed the building at an agreed price, it has to be concluded that the assessee merely worked