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

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

RADHESHYAM AGARWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

132 taxmann.com 73\n(AP)] it was held that where explanations have been offered by the\nassessee that excess stock was a result of suppression of profits\nfrom business over the years the same could not have been\ntreated as undisclosed investment u/s 69. During the course of\nsurvey, the assessee explained that the excess stock was part of\nthe

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

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)

1). Where the total income of an assessee,— includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, (a) section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139; or 11ITA No.185/Ind/2020 DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma determined by the Assessing Officer

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

1-02-2018 against order under section 143(3) of the Act 2. All these appeals have arisen consequent upon search action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 carried out at the premises of M.P.Bullion group of cases, where the assesses are part of the said Group. Since facts, circumstances and the issues are inter

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

1-02-2018 against order under section 143(3) of the Act 2. All these appeals have arisen consequent upon search action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 carried out at the premises of M.P.Bullion group of cases, where the assesses are part of the said Group. Since facts, circumstances and the issues are inter

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

1-02-2018 against order under section 143(3) of the Act 2. All these appeals have arisen consequent upon search action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 carried out at the premises of M.P.Bullion group of cases, where the assesses are part of the said Group. Since facts, circumstances and the issues are inter

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

SHRI VARAD MEHTA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Shri Varad Mehta, Dcit 1(1), B-4/301, Paras City, Vs. Bhopal Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aflpm6733Q Revenue By Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Girish Agrawal,Ca Date Of Hearing 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2018 O R D E R

68, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Assessing Officer found a sum of Rs. 2,01,000 in books of account of assessee - Assessing Officer issued notice to assessee asking him to explain source of said amount - Assessee replied that he borrowed same from different creditors _ However, despite best efforts, assessee could not secure creditors

THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE vs. M/S KETI CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) LTD. , INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

132(4) and also on the written submissions filed before the Investigation Wing and also during the course of assessment proceedings, which have also been abstracted in the assessment order. 10 Keti Construction (India) Ltd & Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd. ITA Nos. 877 & 878/Ind/2019 The assessment proceedings: 17.3.3 It is submitted that the Learned AO in the assessment order rejected

THE DCIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. KALYAN TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

132(4) and also on the written submissions filed before the Investigation Wing and also during the course of assessment proceedings, which have also been abstracted in the assessment order. 10 Keti Construction (India) Ltd & Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd. ITA Nos. 877 & 878/Ind/2019 The assessment proceedings: 17.3.3 It is submitted that the Learned AO in the assessment order rejected

STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD,GOVINDPURA BHOPAL vs. ACIT/DCIT 1(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Star Delta Transformers Acit/Dcit 1(1) Ltd., Bhopal 92-A Industrial Area बनाम/ Govindpura, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaccs0399D Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

132 was conducted upon assessee-company wherein the assessee admitted certain undisclosed income. Post-search, the assessee filed return of income of AY 2011-12 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,59,55,130/-. In the return so filed, the assessee included undisclosed income of Rs. 17,50,000/- admitted during search but, however, the assessee did not offer

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

M.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16

132 and 121] Sr. Details of the items, relevant to the issue Amount (Rs.) No. stated by Ld. Pr.CIT, in point no. 32 in BP (Computation of income from business or profession) 1 Withdrawal of provision of Inter Corporate 14,75,00,000 Deposit (ICD) 2 Withdrawal of provision of interest on ICD 29,64,954 TOTAL

M/S SHRI GURMUKHDAS CONTRACTORS P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-CENRRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in I

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

132(4) does not itself constitute incriminating material. Thus, the statement of Deepak Aggarwal cannot be treated as incriminating evidence for making basis for addition of share premium under section 68 of the Act. ITA No.70/Ind/2020 & Ors.. (M/s. Shri Gurumukhdas Contractors Pvt. Ltd.) - 25 - 20. Further, Delhi High Court in celebrated case of CIT Vs Kabul Chawla (supra

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 12A - list of honors submitted Incomplete details of donors does not mean donations are unaccounted money - Addition oj Donations as cash credit and denying benefit not justified - Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 11, 12A, 68." 3.14 As decided in the cases of Vaishnavi Educations Society vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ITAT Hyderabad Tribunal {B} {20l5