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

132 of the IT Act was conducted at the business premises of the appellant on 25-09-2016. The appellant maintained day to day quantity records in GS-11 and GS-12. During the course of search, difference in the DCIT vs.M/s. Punajb Retail Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2017-18 - 7 – quantity as per GS-11 and GS-12 with

SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

68,34,975/- on account of investment in construction of house pertaining to the Assessment Year 2015-16 in his statement recorded under section 132

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)

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D i.e. from residuary category w.e.f 01.04.2017. However, in the present case search u/s 132

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 132(4A) of the Act, it can be logically concluded that the above mentioned payments reflected in the above pages of the diary were actually made. Since assessee h failed to offer any explanation and only gave evasive replies, it can be concluded that the were paid by Shri Shailendra Sharma only out of his undisclosed income

M/S PUMARTH PROPERTIES & HOLDING (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

132 has carried out on the business as well as residential premises of the Apollo Group of Indore including the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee had offered an additional income of Rs.1,80,00,000/- but also claimed set off of business loss against this income. The Assessing Officer did not allow set off of loss

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

132(4) of the Act the assessee has surrendered an amount of Rs.15 crores as undisclosed money, and out of which in the return filed in response to the notice under section 153A, the assessee has disclosed Rs.3,50,00,000/-. 7. While framing assessment, the ld.AO has taken note of long term capital gain of Rs.3

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

132(4) of the Act the assessee has surrendered an amount of Rs.15 crores as undisclosed money, and out of which in the return filed in response to the notice under section 153A, the assessee has disclosed Rs.3,50,00,000/-. 7. While framing assessment, the ld.AO has taken note of long term capital gain of Rs.3

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

132(4) of the Act the assessee has surrendered an amount of Rs.15 crores as undisclosed money, and out of which in the return filed in response to the notice under section 153A, the assessee has disclosed Rs.3,50,00,000/-. 7. While framing assessment, the ld.AO has taken note of long term capital gain of Rs.3

M.S, ULTIMATE BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT-2, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15 M/S. Ultimate Builders, Acit, Central-Ii, G-1, Kamdhenu Tower, E- Vs. Bhopal 2/22, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aacfu8239M

section 132(4) and consequently the statement under consideration cannot be called to be a statement u/s 132(4). The sequence of events itself establishes that the statement was recorded under mental stress. iv. Whether the statement is based on any unrecorded transactions and documents found during the course of search. Ultimate Builders It may be mentioned that

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

DCIT-4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COM. PVT. LTD., TALOJA, RAIGARH

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 in the year under appeal................." 17. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition made by the Ld. AO observed as follows: “5.14 The appellant has submitted various documents in support of its claim. The said documents were verified by this office. After verification of the same, following facts emerge out which

YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY (P) LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN FROLIC REALTY (P) LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(1) , INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 in the year under appeal................." 17. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition made by the Ld. AO observed as follows: “5.14 The appellant has submitted various documents in support of its claim. The said documents were verified by this office. After verification of the same, following facts emerge out which

SAPAN SHAH,INDORE vs. ACIT-4(I), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38) of Rs.8,29,555/- is a sham transaction, by applying test of human

SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38) of Rs.8,29,555/- is a sham transaction, by applying test of human

DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38) of Rs.8,29,555/- is a sham transaction, by applying test of human

PRAYANK JAIN,INDORE vs. ACIT5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38) of Rs.8,29,555/- is a sham transaction, by applying test of human

MANISH GOVIND AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38) of Rs.8,29,555/- is a sham transaction, by applying test of human

GOVIND HARINARAYAN AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38) of Rs.8,29,555/- is a sham transaction, by applying test of human