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

131 TTJ (Ahd.) 1 has held that in a cases where source of investment/expenditure is clearly identifiable and alleged undisclosed asset has no independent existence of its own or there is no separate physical identity of such investment/expenditure then first what is to be taxed is the undisclosed business receipt invested in unidentifiable unaccounted asset and only on failure

DCIT 5 (1), INDORE vs. M/S SANVERWALA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2012-13 Dcit-5(1) M/S. Sanverwala Jewellers Pvt. Indore Ltd. बनाम/ 12, Chhota Sarafa Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaocs7650K Appellant By Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By S/Shri S.N. Agrawal & Bhavesh Agrawal, Ars Date Of Hearing: 22.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

68 of the I.T. Act to the total income of the assessee company in respect of increase in the share capital. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) summarized the breakup of the share capital and having gone through the facts, submissions and judicial pronouncements thereof

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 10(38) of the Act and therefore, the addition made and confirmed is invalid. 2.7 That various adverse findings and conclusions recorded by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are factually incorrect and contrary to record, legally misconceived and untenable. 2.8 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in concluding without any basis that

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

131 by Nilesh Jain is not within the control of assessee and that is why the assessee has even written to Ld. AO to proceed at his cost. Ld. AR has also invited our attention to the verdict of 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

131 by Nilesh Jain is not within the control of assessee and that is why the assessee has even written to Ld. AO to proceed at his cost. Ld. AR has also invited our attention to the verdict of section 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

section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, we of the considered opinion that there was no justification for making addition to the total income of the assessee on account of capital introduced by its partners since the assessee duly justified the identity and creditworthiness of the partners as well as genuineness of the transactions as entered into with them

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

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

131 of the act. Finally, the Ld. AO concluded that the capital gain declared by the assessee is not genuine and the same has been arranged by the assessee so as to claim benefit of section 10(38). The observations / conclusions made by Ld. AO are re-produced below: “3.5 In view of the above statement it is concluded

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 for making the addition in this regard. Regarding M/s Ruchi Stock & Securities P. Ltd., the ld. CIT-DR further submitted that this company has not shown any loan to the assessee in its balance sheet, but, has shown other loans and advances and notice u/s 131

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.

68 of the Act against share premium received by the assessee- company. Needless to mention that the ld.AO only on the basis of surmises, conjectures and presumption held that the companies providing premium are bogus and paper company. 7. The ld.CIT(A) has also confirmed addition on the wrong presumption that the alleged shareholder were not found

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

Appeals are dismissed

131 days in filing both of these appeals. The\nrevenue/appellant has filed applications for condonation of delays\nsupported by affidavits. In these documents, Ld. DR for revenue explained,\nthe revenue has submitted following reason for delay:\n“I, Sanjeev Kumar, presently posted as Income Tax Officer-5(1), Indore do\nsolemnly affirm as under:-\n1.\nI am assessing officer having

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

Appeals are dismissed

131 days in filing both of these appeals. The\nrevenue/appellant has filed applications for condonation of delays\nsupported by affidavits. In these documents, Ld. DR for revenue explained,\nthe revenue has submitted following reason for delay:\n2.1 \"I, Sanjeev Kumar, presently posted as Income Tax Officer-5(1), Indore do\nsolemnly affirm as under:-\n1. I am assessing officer having

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

ACIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. SANJAY LADDHA, INDORE

section 68 r.w.s.115BBE of\nthe Act by treating the cash as unexplained money of the assessee.\n2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)\nerred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,21,80,200/- on the basis of additional\nevidences ignoring the facts that the conditions laid down

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

131 of the DDIT Investigation Kolkata. Therefore, addition of Rs.3,75,00,000/- is being made to the total income of the assessee on account of credit from unexplained sources for which genuineness is not established. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are being initiated for concealing the particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

ITO 1(3), AYKAR BHAWAN ANNEX, INDORE vs. M/S. FAIRDEAL ENGINEERING & BODY BUILDING CO. (P) LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

131, the director of the lender-company M/s Drastic Forging Pvt. Ltd. appeared in person and the documentary evidences such as copy of latest ITR of the lender-company for AY 2018-19, copy of ITR of AY 2012-13 and copy of audit report of AY 2012-13 were filed. Thus, the first limb of section 68

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

section 68 does not permit any addition qua the opening balances which are carried forward from earlier year and not accepted during the year. Ld. CIT(A) has rightly taken into account the decision of (i) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Usha Stud Farms (301 ITR 384), (ii) Shri Vardhman Overseas Page

KHOJEMA BOHRA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

Appeals are allowed

sections": [ "253", "68", "147", "144B", "271(1)(c)", "115BBE", "246A", "132(4)", "133A", "131" ], "issues": "Whether the loan of Rs. 23,00,000/- claimed