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

8. We have considered the judgment relied upon by the Ld. AR passed by the Hon’ble Delhi Bench in the case of Neha Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No. 3711/Del/2010. On the identical situation the Hon’ble Bench was pleased to observe as follows: “19. The Learned CIT(Appeals) after examining the facts of the case, held

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

8. Firstly, how the ld PCIT has arrived at a conclusive finding that the discrepancies found, confronted and accepted by the assessee during the course of survey attract the deeming provisions of section 68, 69, 69A, 69B & 69C is not apparent from the impugned order. Merely stating that excess cash is clearly covered u/s 68 or 69A, excess stock

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

8. Firstly, how the ld PCIT has arrived at a conclusive finding that the discrepancies found, confronted and accepted by the assessee during the course of survey attract the deeming provisions of section 68, 69, 69A, 69B & 69C is not apparent from the impugned order. Merely stating that excess cash is clearly covered u/s 68 or 69A, excess stock

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

8 franchises were announced on 24.01.2008 and the base price for auction was US $400 million. However, the auction fatched US$723.59. Subsequently, on 21 March 2010 two teams from Pune and Kochhi were added and their base price was fixed at $225 million. While Pune was bought for $370 million, the Kochhi franchise was brought by Rendezvous Sports World

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 - 1.34. Your Honour will appreciate that if the intention of the legislature was to consider the FMV of investments for the purposes of section 56(2)(viib) also, the same could have been expressly clarified by way of an amendment in the rules ( as done in the case of method of valuation for the purpose of section

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal isallowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

8,82,710/- which, was deposited in the ICICI Bank was deposited from the gifts received by the assessee from her parents to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-. Signed Declaration in this regard were submitted before the Ld. AO during the course of re-assessment proceedings. However, the Ld. AO did not accepted the signed declaration by ….. both thesigned

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

8. Ground No.5 is regarding the addition made by the AO on account of unsecured loan u/s 68 of the Act. During the scrutiny assessment the AO noted that the assessee has shown unsecured loan of Rs.6,64,991/- and in the absence of confirmation and other details the AO made addition of the same u/s 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

8 of 14 M/s Hi Link City Homes P. Ltd. Assessment year 2012-13 13. Per contra, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has filed sufficient documentary evidences to Ld. AO during the course of assessment- proceeding in the form of A/c Confirmation and Copy of income-tax return of Nilesh Jain. Ld. AR submitted that non-compliance of notices

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

13 of 16 M/s Hi Link Buildcon P. Ltd. Assessment year 2012-13 offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year.” Thus, the section 68 prescribes in unambiguous terms that not only an explanation

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

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

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 to page 76 and held that the cancellation of registration is not justified. We rely on all the case laws mentioned

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

13 Ruchi Stock & Securities P. Ltd AACCR5008C Rs. 467.20 Rs. 210.14 Rs.562.50 14 to 24 Ruchi Corporation Limited AADCK1337N (-)Rs.430.01 Rs.85192.68 Rs.30.00 25 to 32 Kandla Steels Pvt Ltd TOTAL Rs. 1167.50 => Inter Transfer of funds as evident from copies of accounts:- i) Opening balance due to M/s. Ruchi Corporation at Rs. 575 lacs was repaid by the assessee company

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

8. Assessing Office after wrongly invoking section 69 on account of Cash Sales deposited in the Bank Account of the Assessee also invoke section 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

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 to uphold the addition made by AO. The said proviso prescribes thus: “Provided that where the assessee is a company (not being a company in which the public are substantially interested), and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, any explanation offered

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, stood reconciled against different sale deeds executed by the assessee. Once registered sale deeds had been executed by the assessee and the cash credit entries found standing in the books of account of the assessee during the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2005-06 had been adjusted against the same, there remained

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

8 of 21 Shri Rupesh Vyas Assessment year 2014-15 sum found credited in the books" in section 68 indicates that the said section is very widely worded and an Income-tax Officer is not precluded from making an enquiry as to the true nature and source thereof. It is neither necessary nor desirable to give examples

THE ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. M/S. SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by the Revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13

8,00,000 AY 2007-08 11 S D Biotech 19,00,000 AY 2007-08 12 Sourambai Lalsingh 13,42,000 AY 2007-08 13 Siddharth Pandya 18,00,000 AY 2011-12 5 Sunderdeep Construction Pvt. Ltd 14 Chotelal Sukhramji 30,50,000 AY 2010-11 & AY 2011-12 15 Foolkunwarbai 30,50,000 AY 2010-11 & Chotelal

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

Appeals are dismissed

section 253(5) of the Act empowers the\nITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a\n“sufficient cause\" for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. It is also\na settled position by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land\nAcquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others