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

section 68 of the Act, viz. identity of “A” & “J”, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of “A” & “J”, have been duly established by furnishing a large number of statutory and non-statutory documents. In Para 5.2 of appeal-order, the CIT(A) has already accepted the satisfaction of first two ingredients i.e. the identity of “A” & “J” and genuineness

BHAGWAN SINGH GOUR RUNNING AASHIRWAD FUEL POINT,VILLAGE NEEMKHEDI POST RUNAHA vs. ITO- 4 (3) CV R JAYA KUMAR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF ITO

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

115 BBe while Computing the Total Income and tax Payable by the Assessee which is again wrong implementation of the Section 115BBe due to wrong assumption of the Section 69 along with invoking section 115BBe. A Brief Explanation of Section 115BBe and procedure to be followed by the Assessing as per the Income

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

115 (Madras)(Mag.) 16. In view of the above discussion in the light of the judicial pronouncements (supra), we are of the view that the addition of Rs. 1,59,30,060/- as made by the Assessing Officer on account of unsecured loans received during the year by invoking the provisions of section 68

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

115 7) Cash was deposited before issue of cheque to assessee. He was agriculturist and his income was in cash only. He would explain his source. CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal 366 ITR 217 (Raj.) Also Orissa Corpn P Ltd. 25 Taxman 80F (SC) [ITA No.220/Ind/2017] [Shri Om Prakash Patidar (HUF), Indore] 1) Received by cheque. Bank 2 Smt. Lalita

RADHAKRISHNA AKSHAR VIKAS NYAS ,VIDISHA vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniradhakrishna Akshar Vikas Acit 3(1) Nyas Bhopal Vs. Braj Colony Sironj Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaatr 8725M Assessee By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2024

section 115-BBC. As such, we answer the question in the negative and in favour of appellant (assessee).” 9. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case and following judgment of Hon’ble Orissa High Court (supra) the addition made by the AO is not sustainable and the same is deleted. 10. Ground no.4 to 6 regarding addition

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

section 12A - list of honors submitted Incomplete details of donors does not mean donations are unaccounted money - Addition oj Donations as cash credit and denying benefit not justified - Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 11, 12A, 68." 3.14 As decided in the cases of Vaishnavi Educations Society vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ITAT Hyderabad Tribunal {B} {20l5

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

section 12A - list of honors submitted Incomplete details of donors does not mean donations are unaccounted money - Addition oj Donations as cash credit and denying benefit not justified - Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 11, 12A, 68." 3.14 As decided in the cases of Vaishnavi Educations Society vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ITAT Hyderabad Tribunal {B} {20l5

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2011-12

68 of the Act for the unsecured loan taken from the above referred two lender companies totalling to Rs. 1,44,75,000/- and we also direct the revenue authorities to allow the claim of interest expenditure of Rs.61,58,897/-. We thus dismiss Ground No. 1 & 2 of Revenue’s Appeal in the case of M/s Agrawal Transport Corporation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL vs. SH. PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA, BHOPAL

In the result the “impugned order” is sustained on the first

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit, Prakash Chandra, बनाम/ Bhopal 16/244, Kings Vs. Shopping Centre, Mp Nagar, Zone-I, Bhopal-462011 Madhya Pradesh (Pan:Aappg5194E)

section 68. As a result, ground no 2 is partly allowed. (5). In result, the appeal is partly allowed. 4. That the Revenue being aggrieved by the “Impugned order” has preferred the instant appeal before this Tribunal and has raised the following grounds of appeal in the Form No. 36 against the “Impugned order” which are as under

RADHESHYAM AGARWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

115 BBE does not mean that the\n\"Impugned Assessment order” becomes\nerroneous &\nprejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The Ld. AR has placed\non the record of this Tribunal submissions along with appeal\nMemo from pages 1 to 2 which we reproduce as under:-\nBEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE\nAppellant\n: Radheshyam Agarwal\nProp

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

SAARAS AGRO INDUSTRIES ,KHANDWA vs. THE ACIT , KHANDWA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,572/- found during survey could not be explained by the assessee. The same is, therefore, confirmed. ITA Nos.910 & 911/Ind/2019 (Saaras Agro & Anr.) A.Y.– 2016-17 - 14 - 21. With this ground Nos. 1 & 4 are partly allowed in the terms indicated above. This identical ground in ITA No.911/Ind/2019 is also partly allowed in view of no change in circumstances. Ground

M/S. KANAK AGRO INFRASTRUCTURE,KHANDWA vs. THE ITO WARD-1, KHANDWA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,572/- found during survey could not be explained by the assessee. The same is, therefore, confirmed. ITA Nos.910 & 911/Ind/2019 (Saaras Agro & Anr.) A.Y.– 2016-17 - 14 - 21. With this ground Nos. 1 & 4 are partly allowed in the terms indicated above. This identical ground in ITA No.911/Ind/2019 is also partly allowed in view of no change in circumstances. Ground

THE ACIT, - 4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. YASH TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15 Pan : Aaacy1868M

Section 92BA of the Act does not apply. 21. We, therefore in view of the discussions above and in the given facts and circumstances of the case wherein the Ld. A.O adopted wrong facts treating the salary debited to SEZ units at Rs. 2,12,90,094/- as salary debited to non SEZ units which makes the 13 Yash

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 of the Act and bringing on record any positive and adverse material on record to make sustainable addition in the hands of assessee. We are unable to see any valid reason or basis to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the ld.CIT(A) and, thus, we uphold the same CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 as the addition was rightly deleted

THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 of the Act and bringing on record any positive and adverse material on record to make sustainable addition in the hands of assessee. We are unable to see any valid reason or basis to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the ld.CIT(A) and, thus, we uphold the same CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 as the addition was rightly deleted