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

Section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year the same may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing

M/S OREF SECURITIES PRIVATE LTD. ,MANDSAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.70/Ind/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Vs. Ito, Mandsaur. M/S.Oref Securities P.Ltd. 69, Agrasen Nagar B/H. Mid India Mandsaur.

section 68 of the Act. The ld.AO, as we find from these order, discussed at length about the high premium and accepted Rs.28,31,888/- towards share capital (at Rs.9.62 per equity share), but treated Rs.11,49,18,112

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 Act by stating that only copy of ledger was filed without PAN. The appellant during 19 Sanjay Lunawat ITA No.396/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.32/Ind/2018 the course of appellate proceeding filed copy of account of the appellant in the book of M/s Jain Infratech and contra account of M/s Jain Infratech in the book of the appellant, copy

DCIT-4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COM. PVT. LTD., TALOJA, RAIGARH

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act relates to the transaction with the above-mentioned 3 companies. 14. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. ITA Nos. 290 & 460/Ind/2019 [M/s. Yaksha Infrastructure Co. P. Ltd.] Asst.Year.– 2011-12 - 11 - 15. Before the First Appellate Authority

YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY (P) LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN FROLIC REALTY (P) LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(1) , INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act relates to the transaction with the above-mentioned 3 companies. 14. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. ITA Nos. 290 & 460/Ind/2019 [M/s. Yaksha Infrastructure Co. P. Ltd.] Asst.Year.– 2011-12 - 11 - 15. Before the First Appellate Authority

ITO 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S AMKAY COLONISERS & BUILDERS P LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ito 1(1) M/S. Amkay Colonisers & Bhopal Builders Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 16, Amar Stambh, Z-1, M.P. Nagar Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue ) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaeca 6272 F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.12.2022

section 68 of the IT Act, were deleted. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below for your ready reference: “On perusing the records, it appears that the finding that the assessee was rerouting its own funds was based on surmise. The CIT (A) had the benefit of considering the balance sheet of the lender as well

SHRI OM PRAKASH PATIDAR (HUF),INDORE vs. THE ITO 2(4), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

68 would be applicable. But the learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that misquoting of a section is not fatal to the case of the Revenue. For this proposition, he relied on the following case law: 9 [ITA No.220/Ind/2017] [Shri Om Prakash Patidar (HUF), Indore] ITR 529 (Bom.) (ii) Steel containers Lt.d v. Commissioner (1978) 112

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act on account of share application money received from M/s SKS Ispat and Power Limited. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 20. Before us, the Ld. CIt-DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. AO. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the findings

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act on account of share application money received from M/s SKS Ispat and Power Limited. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 20. Before us, the Ld. CIt-DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. AO. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the findings

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act on account of share application money received from M/s SKS Ispat and Power Limited. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 20. Before us, the Ld. CIt-DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. AO. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the findings

INCME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SWARNA SUKH, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and \"impugned order” is upheld

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the \"Act\" for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066827989(1) dated 19.07.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order\". The relevant 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

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, 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

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold

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

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold

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

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

112/-. Basically, the\nAO's understanding is that the activity of assessee is covered u/s 11(4)/(4A)\nbeing in the nature of 'business' incidental and therefore CBDT Circular No.\n5-P (LXX-6) of 1968 dated 19.06.1968 applies. Accordingly, placing\nreliance on section 11(4)/(4A) and CBDT Circular, the AO viewed that the\nquantum of 'standard exemption

SHRI OM PRAKASH PHATANDAS PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 1(2), INDORE

In the result Ground No. 1 to 6 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

68 to the extent of Rs.6,62,870/- has been confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) only on the basis of assumptions and conjectures (that the assessee must have paid some amount and was not able to prove the source of the same). It is mostly respectfully submitted that the assessee cannot prove source of a payment which has been assumed

NEELAM MITTAL,BURHANPUR vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

In the result, all grounds raised by the assessee(s) are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2015-16

Section 68 of the Act directed to be rejected. 5.The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter and/or amend all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. 3. From perusal of the above grounds we find that the common issues have been raised firstly relates to genuineness of Long Term Capital Gain(in short LTCG), claimed exempt