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

12. The case of the assessee is this that the amendment in Section 115BBE came into force only on 15.12.2016 whereas the search was conducted on 21.09.2016 and the assessee has paid tax @ 30%. The provision of Section 115BBE of the Act tax prior to the amendment reads as follows: “115BBE. (1) Where the total income

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)

68 to 69Cas the part ofbusiness income then amended provisions of section 115BBE of the Act is not applicable. 4.3 Further placing reliance on the another judgment of the ITAT, Indore Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Shri Anoop Neema, reported as 2022 (1) TMI 683-ITAT Indore, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) find

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

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D i.e. from residuary category w.e.f 01.04.2017. Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of CIT vs Vatika Township Pvt Ltd (2014) 24 ITJ 532 (SC): (2014) 271 CTR 1: (2014) 227 Taxmann 121 has held that “An amendment made to the taxing statute can be said to be intended to remove

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

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D i.e. from residuary category w.e.f 01.04.2017. Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of CIT vs Vatika Township Pvt Ltd (2014) 24 ITJ 532 (SC): (2014) 271 CTR 1: (2014) 227 Taxmann 121 has held that “An amendment made to the taxing statute can be said to be intended to remove

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

12,587/-, the sundry creditors ought to have been paid Rs.1,08,78,97,548/- instead the appellant paid Rs.98,45,00,000/- as loan and advances, without paying of its liability, reasons whereof since not ITA No.281/Ind/2018 (ACIT vs. M/s. Vindhya Solvent Pvt. Ltd.) A.Y.–2014-15 - 29 - explained the impugned addition under Section 68

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal isallowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 28.12.2017 as the assessee did not submit any documentary evidence in respect of the source of cash deposits and the declaration signed by the parents of the assessee stating the fact of gifting Rs.5 Lakhs each to their daughters, being the assessee herein since doubted. The same was, in turn

THE ACIT (CENTRAL), UJJAIN vs. M/S. VYANKTESH PLASTICS & PACKAGING (P) LTD., UJJAIN

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 68 of the Act are applicable. Name of Company Amount (Rs.) i) M/s.Dwarkesh Finance Ltd.[(In short) ‘DFL’] 15,26,111/- ii) M/s. Famous Vanijya Pvt. Ltd.[ .[(In short) 2,15,03,302/- ‘FVPL’] iii) M/s. Navyug Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. [(In short) 10,13,83,277/- ‘NVPL’] Total 12

ACIT (CENTRAL) , UJJAIN vs. M/S. ARIBA FOODS (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 68 of the Act are applicable. Name of Company Amount (Rs.) i) M/s.Dwarkesh Finance Ltd.[(In short) ‘DFL’] 15,26,111/- ii) M/s. Famous Vanijya Pvt. Ltd.[ .[(In short) 2,15,03,302/- ‘FVPL’] iii) M/s. Navyug Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. [(In short) 10,13,83,277/- ‘NVPL’] Total 12

THE ACIT (CENTRAL), UJJAIN vs. M/S. FAMOUS VANIJYA (P) LTD. , UJJAIN

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 68 of the Act are applicable. Name of Company Amount (Rs.) i) M/s.Dwarkesh Finance Ltd.[(In short) ‘DFL’] 15,26,111/- ii) M/s. Famous Vanijya Pvt. Ltd.[ .[(In short) 2,15,03,302/- ‘FVPL’] iii) M/s. Navyug Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. [(In short) 10,13,83,277/- ‘NVPL’] Total 12

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

section 68.". 4.12 Similarly in the case of Balbir Chand Maini Vs CIT [2011] 12 taxrnann.com 276 (Punjab & Haryana

THE I.T.O. 2 (1), INDORE vs. M/S HI LINK BUILDCON 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 Buildcon Pvt. Indore Ltd. बनाम/ 06, Sadhna Nagar, Vs. Airport Road, Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aacch7180H 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

12 of 16 M/s Hi Link Buildcon P. Ltd. Assessment year 2012-13 “15. On the facts of the present case, clearly the Assessee Company-Respondent failed to discharge the onus required under Section 68

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

section 68 cannot apply to the issue in hand. 14. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and also perused the record as well as judicial precedents cited. We observe that a total sum of Rs. 1,21,49,560/- (assessee’s part is Rs. 24,52,910/-) has been shown as outstanding by assessee and its group

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

12 Mayur Ind. assessee satisfactorily discharged the primary onus cast upon it under section 68 of the Act. Accordingly

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 3, Balbir Chand Maini Vs CIT [2011J 12 taxmann.com 276 (Punjab & Haryana) / [2011] 201 Taxman 94 (Punjab

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

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

section 68 of the Act.”: Therefore, for the forth going reasons, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and delete the addition of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act. ” 4.20 Therefore, keeping in mind the above discussion : not only the factual matrix but also the relevant judicial decisions specially of the judicial

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

Appeals are dismissed

section 68 addition, the AO has examined them\nand found nothing adverse. Similarly, necessary documents have been\nfurnished by the appellant for balance / fresh credit of Rs.18,12

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

Appeals are dismissed

section 68 addition, the AO has examined them\nand found nothing adverse. Similarly, necessary documents have been\nfurnished by the appellant for balance / fresh credit of Rs.18,12