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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139; or DCIT vs.M/s. Punajb Retail Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2017-18 - 13

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

13,47,63,640/- declared voluntarily by the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12, is undisclosed stock held under the customary trading of the business and hence should be treated as the business income of the assessee firm and not as undisclosed investment as held by the AO. If all the three conditions of Section 69 exist together, the unrecorded

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

13,47,63,640/- declared voluntarily by the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12, is undisclosed stock held under the customary trading of the business and hence should be treated as the business income of the assessee firm and not as undisclosed investment as held by the AO. If all the three conditions of Section 69 exist together, the unrecorded

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

13. The deletion of addition of Rs.1,29,00,31,341/- being the opening balance of the creditor 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 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the addition ofRs. 27,57,710/- is bad in law and is liable to be deleted. 2. Charging, the interest u/s. 234A and 234B of the Act: That the Ld. assessing officer erred in charging the interest u/s. 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. ITA No.983/Ind/2019 (Smt. Archana

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 of the IT Act, 1961. 4.4 The fundamentals and financials of the M/ s Lifeline Drugs &, Pharma Ltd. have been analyzed and discussed in detail by the AO in the assessment order at Page Nos. 4 to 5. The analysis made by the AO clearly establishes the fact that the prices of the shares suddenly shot

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

section 68 in PCIT Vs. NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. SLP (Civil) No. 29855 of 2018, dated 05.03.2019. The relevant paras are reproduced below: “13

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 in PCIT Vs. NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. SLP (Civil) No. 29855 of 2018, dated 05.03.2019. The relevant paras are reproduced below: “13

M/S. RISHIRAJ K.M.B. EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. THE CIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: Na

section 11 and 13 it is too be considered by the A.O at the stage of the assessment. The registration of the institution u/s 12A cannot be cancelled”. The Hon’ble Tribunal discussed many cases on this point from page 68

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

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 have already been deleted on merit. Therefore, the charging of tax liability as per amended provisions of section 115BBE on these grounds is academic in nature and having no impact on the fate of these grounds." 13

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

M/S. MADHYA PRADESH CRICKET ASSOCIATION,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed and consequently the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13 Madhya Pradesh Cricket Dcit, 1(1), Association Indore बनाम/ Holkar Stadium, Vs. 7, Race Course Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaatg3527C Appellant By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Shri Arpit Gaur (Ar) Revenue By Shri Lal Chand (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.06.2017

13,68,000/- 4.1.5.2.8.1 Proceeding further in the matter examination of books of accounts revealed that no free tickets or tickets at concessional rates were given to the poor Spectators to watch the India vs West Indies Match or the IPL Matches. Contrary to this examination of Income & Expenditure A/c related to IPL matches revealed that the assessee claimed

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

68 3, Balbir Chand Maini Vs CIT [2011J 12 taxmann.com 276 (Punjab & Haryana) / [2011] 201 Taxman 94 (Punjab & Haryana (MAG.) / [2012] 340 ITR 161 (Punjab & Haryana) / [2012] 247 CTR 468 (Punjab & Haryana) Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments Assessment year 1998-99 During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer found that assessee had purchased certain shares

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

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

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

13,640/- as income of the appellant under Section 68 of the Act. It is observed from the details

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

Appeals are dismissed

section 68 of the 1.T. Act.\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in\nadmitting additional evidences at the time of appeal ignoring the fact that it\ndoes not fulfil the conditions laid down in Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962\nas sufficient opportunities were provided to the assessee during

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

Appeals are dismissed

section 68 of the 1.T. Act.\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in\nadmitting additional evidences at the time of appeal ignoring the fact that it\ndoes not fulfil the conditions laid down in Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962\nas sufficient opportunities were provided to the assessee during

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

13. First of all, we note that the contention of the assessee that it was under genuine and bona fide belief that it was permitted to accept SBN during demonetization period cannot be accepted. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the assessee that the assessee was under a genuine and bona fide belief that the assessee could