ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S AGRAWAL CONSTRUCTION CO., BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

section. The appellant has made claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) wherein, the permission certificate and completion certificate from the local authority have been obtained within cutoff date which is the most basis requirement to claim deduction u/s 80IB(10). 16. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the Revenue

NARENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

5,00,000/-”] as claimed in the Income Tax Return; instead, the\nentire amount of Rs. 15,54,304/- should have been allowed as exempt\nunder section 10 of the Act.\"\nDuring hearing before us, neither side has made any submission qua\nGround No. 1, 2 & 4. Therefore, Ground No. 1, 2 & 4 are treated as non-\npressed/non-pleaded

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

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

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

Section 115BBE of the Act was brought into effect from 1.4.2013 by the Finance Act 2012 which provides that no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance or set off of any loss is to be allowed against the income declared or assessed u/s 68, 69, 69A,69B, 69C & 69D. Ld. CIT(A) also held that 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

10 9.6 From a bare reading of section 68, it is clear that the said section applies to cash credits for which assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory. Thus clearly, the section 68 applies to instances

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

Appeal is allowed

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

5 of this Release-Deed, it is clearly mentioned that total 33 Units were held by local-authority under mortgage in terms of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Coloniser Regulations, 1998; out of which 31 plots were released from time to time and the remaining two plots, being No. 151 and 152, were released on 30.05.2012 / 26.02.2015. Ld. AR also carried

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

Appeal is allowed

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

5 of this Release-Deed, it is clearly mentioned that total 33 Units were held by local-authority under mortgage in terms of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Coloniser Regulations, 1998; out of which 31 plots were released from time to time and the remaining two plots, being No. 151 and 152, were released on 30.05.2012 / 26.02.2015. Ld. AR also carried

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

Appeal is allowed

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

5 of this Release-Deed, it is clearly mentioned that total 33 Units were held by local-authority under mortgage in terms of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Coloniser Regulations, 1998; out of which 31 plots were released from time to time and the remaining two plots, being No. 151 and 152, were released on 30.05.2012 / 26.02.2015. Ld. AR also carried

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

Appeal is allowed

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

5 of this Release-Deed, it is clearly mentioned that total 33 Units were held by local-authority under mortgage in terms of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Coloniser Regulations, 1998; out of which 31 plots were released from time to time and the remaining two plots, being No. 151 and 152, were released on 30.05.2012 / 26.02.2015. Ld. AR also carried

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

Appeal is allowed

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

5 of this Release-Deed, it is clearly mentioned that total 33 Units were held by local-authority under mortgage in terms of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Coloniser Regulations, 1998; out of which 31 plots were released from time to time and the remaining two plots, being No. 151 and 152, were released on 30.05.2012 / 26.02.2015. Ld. AR also carried

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

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

10 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2015] 229 Taxman 173, Hon 'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that.- "where assessee could not explain receipt of alleged share transactions profits credited in his bank accounts, then sale proceeds had to be added as income 01 assessee under section 68.". 4.12 Similarly in the case of Balbir Chand Maini Vs CIT [2011] 12 taxrnann.com

M/S PUMARTH PROPERTIES & HOLDING (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

5. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the decision of coordinate bench, Kolkata in the case of Subhalakshmi Vanijya (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused material available on the record. The Ld. CIT(A) has decided this issue by observing as under: “3.3 I have gone through the assessment order and the appellant

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)

5:- Through this ground of appeal, the appellant has challenged the chargeability of tax rate under amended provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. During the course of search on 28.09.2016 excess stock in the form of jewellery and silver utensils worth Rs.1,28,48,827/- were found and cash amounting to Rs.1,57,01,227/- was found from

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal isallowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

5 - Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply if the person, in whose name the sum referred to therein is recorded, is a venture capital fund or a venture capital company as referred to in clause (23FB)of section 10." Further, as per CBDT Instruction dated 10.01.2018, section 68

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 (Punjab & Haryana) / [2015] 229 Taxman 173 Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana/-High Court held that where assessee could not explain receipt of alleged share transactions profits credited in his bank accounts, then sale proceeds had to be added as income of assessee under section 68 3, Balbir Chand Maini Vs CIT [2011J 12 taxmann.com 276 (Punjab & Haryana

INCOME TAX OFFICER INDORE 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

5,03,68,443/- (Rs.4,40,37,039 + Interest of Rs.\n63,31,404/-) has been added to the total income as unexplained cash credit\nu/s 68 of the IT act 1961 and the same is taxed u/s 115BBE of Income tax\nAct, 1961. After satisfying on the facts of the case penalty proceedings u/s\n271AAC are initiated separately