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

133(6) / 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 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

133(6) / 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

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 have already been deleted on merit. Therefore, the charging of tax liability as per amended provisions of section 115BBE on these grounds is academic in nature and having no impact on the fate of these grounds." 13. The above findings of the Ld. CIT(A) have not been controverted

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

68 which is not proper. Therefore the addition is deleted. 8. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed.” 16. Again in the case of Saidatar Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No. 1613/Mum/2021 vide order dated 05.09.2022, the ITAT again on similar set of facts allowing the appeal of the assessee on this issue

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 is very much illegal. Ld. DR for assessee has though relied upon statements of Shri Anand Sharma and the observations made by AO in various paras of assessment-order (as narrated by us in foregoing paras of this order) but, however, could not controvert these vital points as noted by us. Page 27 of 44 M/s Decent

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 and not u/s 56(2)(viib ). 1.2 The AO has not made addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) but. has discussed the section in detail We have raised ground no. 1 to keep this matter alive. If any adjudication is to be given on this issue, We may be given some time to give separate submission on this

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

Section 68 of the Act is concerned, the Appellant has already discharged its obligation through providing evidences like the details name, address, bank statement, net worth of the counterparties, etc. to prove identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of counterparties. Further, the identity of the counterparties is proved beyond doubt as the Assessing Officer has issued notices u/s. 133

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

Section 68 of the Act is concerned, the Appellant has already discharged its obligation through providing evidences like the details name, address, bank statement, net worth of the counterparties, etc. to prove identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of counterparties. Further, the identity of the counterparties is proved beyond doubt as the Assessing Officer has issued notices u/s. 133

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

Appeals are dismissed

sections": [ "143(3)", "68", "142(1)", "139", "253(5)", "46A", "271AAC", "115BBE", "133(6)", "37", "40(b)" ], "issues": "Whether

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 (kindly refer CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del) and DCIT vs. Sanwerwala Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 42 ITJ 298 (Trib. Indore). We submit that the respondent proved the source of the source besides the fact that all three lender companies had given unsecured loans had filed their Income tax return whereby identity

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

Appeals are dismissed

sections": [ "143(3)", "68", "144B", "46A", "139", "142(1)", "143(2)", "253(5)", "271AAC", "115BBE", "133(6)" ], "issues": "Whether

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

VIRENDRA KUMAR MANDOT,, SADAR BAZAR SAILANA RATLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO-1, RATLAM, RATLAM

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

sections": [ "147", "143(3)", "144B", "68", "69A", "115BBE", "145", "133(6)", "143(2)", "142(1)" ], "issues": "The primary issue

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

section 68 of the I.T. 21 Sunderdeep Construction Pvt. Ltd Act does not come into play. No material was brought by the Ld. A.O to prove that the money was the assessee’s own undisclosed income” (emphasis supplied). 16. As regards the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd (supra) relied

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

section 68 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act by treating the cash as\nunexplained money of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC is\nbeing initiated separately on this issue.\n5.\nDuring first-appeal, the assessee made a detailed submission to CIT(A).\nThe assessee also filed additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A of Income-\ntax Rules, 1962 with a justification

THE DCIT, 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. MODERN LABORATORIES, INDORE

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ ./ ./ I.T.A. No.277 & Co.16/Ind/2014 ./ "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09

133(6) issued to such parties who have directly confirmed the transaction. However, the AO made the addition of Rs.1,48,00, 000 under section 68

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

133(6) as also summon issued u/s 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

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

133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and alsoissued summons under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the directors of the creditor company. The AO, in his remand report, has admitted that in response to the letters and summons so issued, the lender company has furnished the necessary documents so called for and the directors