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

139; or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— (i) the amount of income-tax calculated

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

139; or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— (i) the amount of income-tax calculated

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

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

68,34,975/- as accepted in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 did not fall within the definition of ‘undisclosed income’ as provided in Explanation to section 271AAB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961; hence, there arises no question of levy of penalty of Rs. 6,83,498/- under section

RITIKA JAIN,THANE vs. ITO(IT TP), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAVAN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiritika Jain, Cit (Appeals), बना A-504, Laxmi Residency Chs Nfac, म/ Ltd, Delhi Vs. Opposite Datta Mandir Check Naka, Wagle Estate, Thane

68 of the Act. (b) Ld.AO erred in making addition to the tune of Rs.4,14,000 u/s 69 of the Act without issuing show cause notice. 6) Ld. AO has erred in passing order u/s 148A(d) & issuing notice u/s 148 of L.T.Act, 1961 without appreciating that appellant was not having the jurisdiction for the same in view

REKHA KHANDELWAL,RAJGARH vs. ITO WARD RAJGARH, RAJGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Rekha Khandelwal, Income-Tax Officer, Ward No.2, Near Chote Ward Rajgarh Hanuman Mandir, बनाम/ Rajgarh Bus Stand Vs. S.O. Rajgarh, (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Eljpk1548B Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

139 of the Act nor in compliance to notice issued to him u/s 142(1) of the Act, dated 10.03.2018. As the assessee had failed to file his return of income, the CIT(Appeals) had brought his case within the meaning of Clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 249 of the Act. For the sake

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

139(1) on 29.09.2014 declaring income of Rs. 1,10,38,0301-. As the appellant firm had not offered the income disclosed uls 132(4) in the return filed uls 153A the Assessing' officer has treated Rs. 2,25,00,0001- in A.Y 2014-15 as undisclosed income of the appellant and has made addition to the total income

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

Appeals are dismissed

section 253(5) of the Act empowers the\nITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a\n“sufficient cause\" for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. It is also\na settled position by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land\nAcquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others

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

Appeals are dismissed

4)\n(5)\n(6)\nThe appellant\nThe respondent\nCIT\nCIT(A)\nDepartmental Representative\nGuard File\nSd/-\n(B.M. BIYANI)\nACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nBy order\nSr. Private secretary\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nIndore Bench, Indore", "summary": { "facts": "The revenue filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) that deleted additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section

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

4(iii) of assessment-order, the AO has himself noted that before Investigation Wing, “A” and “J” stated in their written-submissions that they liquidated their old investments held in earlier years and the proceeds was utilised for making investment in assessee-company. Thus, there is a clear-cut explanation by “A” and “J” made to authorities in favour

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

4 relate to addition of Rs.22,54,71,970/- under Section 68 of the Act on account of credits entries from three parties, addition of Rs.1,62,30,000/- under Section 68 of the Act on account of received against advance given and Rs.18,84,23,265/- under Section 68 of the Act on received towards material

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

4 relate to addition of Rs.22,54,71,970/- under Section 68 of the Act on account of credits entries from three parties, addition of Rs.1,62,30,000/- under Section 68 of the Act on account of received against advance given and Rs.18,84,23,265/- under Section 68 of the Act on received towards material

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

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

AVIRAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

68 of the Act which Aviral Industries automatically proves that credit entries in respect of such receipts were duly made by the appellant in its regular books of account. 12. The appellant company had furnished its original return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 on 30.11.2014. Being a company, the Appellant is also

M/S. HERO'S EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

68 received mainly from society members. The assessee society has been denied claimed exemption u/s 11 and u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) as claimed during assessment proceedings. 4. Being aggrieved the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 5. During the course of appeal proceedings, the assessee has submitted that the assessee society was entitled to exemption

SHRI SHYAMLAL GOYAL,SENDHWA vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL,CIRCLE -2, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 247/Ind/2021 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

4 of 15 Shri Shyamlal Goyal & others ITA No.245 to 247/Ind/2021 Assessment year 2019-20 7. Section 115BBE reads as under: “115BBE. (1) Where the total income of an assessee, -- (a) includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected

SHRI LOKESH MANGAL,BARWANI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL,CIRCLE-2, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 247/Ind/2021 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

4 of 15 Shri Shyamlal Goyal & others ITA No.245 to 247/Ind/2021 Assessment year 2019-20 7. Section 115BBE reads as under: “115BBE. (1) Where the total income of an assessee, -- (a) includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected

SHRI AASHISH MANGAL,BARWANI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 247/Ind/2021 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

4 of 15 Shri Shyamlal Goyal & others ITA No.245 to 247/Ind/2021 Assessment year 2019-20 7. Section 115BBE reads as under: “115BBE. (1) Where the total income of an assessee, -- (a) includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected