DCIT-CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL vs. M/S SINGNATURE COLONISERS, BHOPAL

In the result, both the departmental appeals i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Abxfs 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Accfs 9498 Q … Respondent

4 of the Income Tax Act must be filled up by the Assessing Officer through investigations and correlations with the other material found either during the course of the search or on the investigation. As a result, we hold that document No.7 is a non-speaking document.” CBI vs VC Shukla 3 SCC 410 The Hon’ble Supreme Court

DCIT,CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL vs. M/S SIGNATURE BUILDERS AND COLONISER, BHOPAL

In the result, both the departmental appeals i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Abxfs 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Accfs 9498 Q … Respondent

4 of the Income Tax Act must be filled up by the Assessing Officer through investigations and correlations with the other material found either during the course of the search or on the investigation. As a result, we hold that document No.7 is a non-speaking document.” CBI vs VC Shukla 3 SCC 410 The Hon’ble Supreme Court

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(4

DCIT CENTRAL, BHOPAL vs. SHARAD SHARMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No. 29/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2010-11) It(Ss)A No. 32/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2015-16) Shri Sharad Sharma, Acit, Central, बनाम/ H-3B, Nishant Colony, Gwalior Vs. 74 Bunglows, (Stationed At Bhopal) Tt Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Amzps9791D) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 134(4), we are holding that the authorities below have committed error of law in drawing inference from the materials placed on record, i.e. admission of the Page 30 of 64 Shri Sharad Sharma IT(SS)A Nos. 29 & 32/Ind/2023 and ITA Nos. 309 & 304/Ind/2023- A.Y.2010-11, 2012-13, 2015-16 assessee coupled with its retraction by the assessee

DCIT CENTRAL, BHOPAL vs. SHARAD SHARMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No. 29/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2010-11) It(Ss)A No. 32/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2015-16) Shri Sharad Sharma, Acit, Central, बनाम/ H-3B, Nishant Colony, Gwalior Vs. 74 Bunglows, (Stationed At Bhopal) Tt Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Amzps9791D) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 134(4), we are holding that the authorities below have committed error of law in drawing inference from the materials placed on record, i.e. admission of the Page 30 of 64 Shri Sharad Sharma IT(SS)A Nos. 29 & 32/Ind/2023 and ITA Nos. 309 & 304/Ind/2023- A.Y.2010-11, 2012-13, 2015-16 assessee coupled with its retraction by the assessee

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

4. … A word in a statue is quite often judged by the company its keeps. The preceding words of Section 132(1), cannot be ignored or overlooked. Money, bullion, jewellery, which precede “other valuable article or thing” forge a genus and, consequently, the words “other valuable article or thing” assume a constricted meaning and interpretation in that context

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

4. … A word in a statue is quite often judged by the company its keeps. The preceding words of Section 132(1), cannot be ignored or overlooked. Money, bullion, jewellery, which precede “other valuable article or thing” forge a genus and, consequently, the words “other valuable article or thing” assume a constricted meaning and interpretation in that context

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

4. In the Asstt.Year 2008-09, by way of Ground no.1 to 3, the Revenue challenges deletion of addition of Rs.3,67,49,655/- made by the AO under section 68 of the Act. These grounds read as under: “1. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred

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

4. In the Asstt.Year 2008-09, by way of Ground no.1 to 3, the Revenue challenges deletion of addition of Rs.3,67,49,655/- made by the AO under section 68 of the Act. These grounds read as under: “1. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred

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

4. In the Asstt.Year 2008-09, by way of Ground no.1 to 3, the Revenue challenges deletion of addition of Rs.3,67,49,655/- made by the AO under section 68 of the Act. These grounds read as under: “1. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred

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

4 – " The fact remained undisputed till the date of issuance of show cause Notice dated 31.10.2018 & 05.12.2018 whereas no reply was filed till 11.12.2018 " The assessee has now come forward with a plea that the valuation made by Govt. approved Valuer; is not correct on adopting the value of gold/ornaments in the valuation report, although there is no dispute over

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

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 and survey u/s 133 of the Act took place on 28.09.2016. The appellant during the course of search made voluntary disclosure of additional income of Rs. 4

MR GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, INDORE

Accordingly. Thus, this ground is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Gaurav Ajmera, Dcit, बनाम/ 38, Ram Mohalla, Central Circle 2, Ratlam Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aglpa8863C Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.09.2023

132(4) that he was unable to explain the source of cash; that the impugned cash was not recorded in his books; that he had no objection in seizure of cash by department; that the cash was earned from “undisclosed sources”; that it was his “undisclosed income”; and it was undisclosed income of current financial year 2016-17. Further

THE DCIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI PANKAJ KALANI, INDORE

In the result, revenue’s appeals in IT(SS)A 104

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

section 132(4) has no relevance. Grounds of appeal in CO 25/Ind/2017-AY 2012-13-Assessee’s Cross Objection-Pankaj Kalani: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT[A] erred in maintaining the additional income as declared and incorporated in the return of total income even when the correct amount of total

THE DCIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI DIPAK KALANI, INDORE

In the result, revenue’s appeals in IT(SS)A 104

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

section 132(4) has no relevance. Grounds of appeal in CO 25/Ind/2017-AY 2012-13-Assessee’s Cross Objection-Pankaj Kalani: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT[A] erred in maintaining the additional income as declared and incorporated in the return of total income even when the correct amount of total

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

ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL vs. SHRI SANJEEV AGRAWAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 The Acit (Central)-2, Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Bhopal, Mp-462011 H.No.E-2/134, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal, Mp-452016 Pan Adhpa8387N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit(Dr) For Assessee : Shri S. S. Deshpande, Ca Shri Satyajeet Chatterjee, Ca

132(4) of the Act cannot be held as sustainable in absence collaborative evidence found in supports such addition. Further the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Shri Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT(supra) held that mere reading of statement of assessee is not the assessment of evidentiary value of the evidence well such statement is self