PIYUSH JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(4), INDORE , ITO, INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Act would\ntantamount to double taxation of the same income.\n20. ITAT, Jaipur Bench, in Chandra Surana, ITA No. 166/JP/2022 [CLC Page 94- 105

NEMINATH DEVELOPERS,UJJAIN vs. ACIT2(1) , UJJAIN

Appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2015-16 Neminath Developers, Acit 2(1) 105, Mani Trade Centre, Ujjain बनाम/ Shanku Marg Freeganj, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aagfn3566L Assessee By Shri Pavan Ved, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026

105, Mani Trade Centre, Ujjain बनाम/ Shanku Marg Freeganj, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AAGFN3566L Assessee by Shri Pavan Ved, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 10.04.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 08.07.2025 passed by learned Commissioner

THE DCIT, 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. MODERN LABORATORIES, INDORE

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ ./ ./ I.T.A. No.277 & Co.16/Ind/2014 ./ "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09

105 (Guj). This explain the role of commission agents in government contract and describes the details of service rendered by them in such contracts. On merits, the CIT (A) observed that there is mismatch in the case of M/s. Apex Pharmaceuticals, Bhopal regarding bills and TDS and variation of commission payments from 1% to 25%. The appellant explained that though

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 may be invoked which is not the case here at all 4.19 With due respect, it is submitted that the allegation that the appellant has infused its own money in the grab of unsecured loon is without any basis and not correct and merely on the basis of conjecture or surmises. It is also undisputed fact that

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 may be invoked which is not the case here at all 4.19 With due respect, it is submitted that the allegation that the appellant has infused its own money in the grab of unsecured loon is without any basis and not correct and merely on the basis of conjecture or surmises. It is also undisputed fact that

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 may be invoked which is not the case here at all 4.19 With due respect, it is submitted that the allegation that the appellant has infused its own money in the grab of unsecured loon is without any basis and not correct and merely on the basis of conjecture or surmises. It is also undisputed fact that

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

section 263 is not permitted to substitute his estimate of income in place of the income estimated by the Assessing Officer. (vii) The Assessing Officer exercises quasi-judicial power vested in him and if he exercises such power in accordance with law and arrive at a conclusion, such conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the Commissioner

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

105/-. The assessee was asked to furnish the following information: - II (a) Copy of letters from donors showing specific direction that the donations are to towards Corpus showing. (b) Copies of Receipts issued to donors to Corpus Donations. (c) PAN & proof of Address of donors. (d) Specify mode of payment viz Cheque/cash. There’ve the donations are claimed to have

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

105/-. The assessee was asked to furnish the following information: - II (a) Copy of letters from donors showing specific direction that the donations are to towards Corpus showing. (b) Copies of Receipts issued to donors to Corpus Donations. (c) PAN & proof of Address of donors. (d) Specify mode of payment viz Cheque/cash. There’ve the donations are claimed to have

M/S AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD.,INDORE vs. THEDCIT 1(1) , INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 viz creditworthiness, of the loan creditors and the genuineness of the transactions, which have been doubted, by the AO in the assessment order. Both these issues are discussed here under: 6. A. CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE LENDER COMPANIES: The facts pertaining to each company are discussed separately as under.- 6.1 I. M/S CHAMAK

DY. CIT -1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 viz creditworthiness, of the loan creditors and the genuineness of the transactions, which have been doubted, by the AO in the assessment order. Both these issues are discussed here under: 6. A. CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE LENDER COMPANIES: The facts pertaining to each company are discussed separately as under.- 6.1 I. M/S CHAMAK

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AVILABLE FINANCE LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 viz creditworthiness, of the loan creditors and the genuineness of the transactions, which have been doubted, by the AO in the assessment order. Both these issues are discussed here under: 6. A. CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE LENDER COMPANIES: The facts pertaining to each company are discussed separately as under.- 6.1 I. M/S CHAMAK

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

105/-. The assessee in total purchased 2,00,000 quantity of scrip of M/s. Splash Media Works Ltd. from One M/s. A. S. Securities Shares and Investment Consultants, 63/2, Vadar Society, Malad (E), Mumbai. The purchase bill was submitted by the assessee. The assessee has claimed to have purchased these 5000 shares of Splash Media Works Ltd. through broker

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

105/-. The assessee in total purchased 2,00,000 quantity of scrip of M/s. Splash Media Works Ltd. from One M/s. A. S. Securities Shares and Investment Consultants, 63/2, Vadar Society, Malad (E), Mumbai. The purchase bill was submitted by the assessee. The assessee has claimed to have purchased these 5000 shares of Splash Media Works Ltd. through broker

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

105/-. The assessee in total purchased 2,00,000 quantity of scrip of M/s. Splash Media Works Ltd. from One M/s. A. S. Securities Shares and Investment Consultants, 63/2, Vadar Society, Malad (E), Mumbai. The purchase bill was submitted by the assessee. The assessee has claimed to have purchased these 5000 shares of Splash Media Works Ltd. through broker

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

105/-. The assessee in total purchased 2,00,000 quantity of scrip of M/s. Splash Media Works Ltd. from One M/s. A. S. Securities Shares and Investment Consultants, 63/2, Vadar Society, Malad (E), Mumbai. The purchase bill was submitted by the assessee. The assessee has claimed to have purchased these 5000 shares of Splash Media Works Ltd. through broker

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 liable to deleted. The ld.CIT(A) in turn deleted the same, by holding that no incriminating documents/evidences in respect of these loans were found during the course of search and those additions were outside the purview of section 153A. Therefore, since the loans taken were found to be genuine, disallowance of interest on such loans was not valid

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 liable to deleted. The ld.CIT(A) in turn deleted the same, by holding that no incriminating documents/evidences in respect of these loans were found during the course of search and those additions were outside the purview of section 153A. Therefore, since the loans taken were found to be genuine, disallowance of interest on such loans was not valid