RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

68 clearly permits an Income-tax Officer to make enquiries with regard to the nature and source of any or all the sums credited in the books of account of the company irrespective of the nomenclature or the source indicated by the assessee. In other words, the truthfulness of the assertion of the assessee regarding the nature and the source

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

68. 9. During assessment-proceeding, when the AO show-caused assessee to explain the justification of issuance of shares having face value of Rs. 10/- at a premium of Rs. 990/-, the assessee filed reply dated 24.12.2019 which is re-produced by AO in Para 3.1-3.2 of assessment-order as under: Page 6 of 44 M/s Decent Industries

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

68 clearly permits an Income-tax Officer to make enquiries with regard to the nature and source of any or all the sums credited in the books of account of the company irrespective of the nomenclature or the source indicated by the assessee. In other words, the truthfulness of the assertion of the assessee regarding the nature and the source

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 143(3) r.w.s. 144 ITA Nos. 290 & 460/Ind/2019 [M/s. Yaksha Infrastructure Co. P. Ltd.] Asst.Year.– 2011-12 - 2 - of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. These appeals are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience

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 143(3) r.w.s. 144 ITA Nos. 290 & 460/Ind/2019 [M/s. Yaksha Infrastructure Co. P. Ltd.] Asst.Year.– 2011-12 - 2 - of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. These appeals are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience

THE ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN vs. SHRI SANJAY BAGDI, UJJAIN

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Sanjay Bagdi, Income Tax – 2(1), Vs. 173 Alakhdham Nagar, Ujjain Ujjain (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Ahcpb6349L Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri S.S. Deshpande & Bhavesh Netkar,Cas Date Of Hearing 01.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 14.11.2018 O R D E R

144 of the Act. As far as the audited balance sheet is concerned Ld.A.O took up two figures relating to sundry creditors and unsecured loans which he deemed necessary to be examined about their identity, genuineness and creditworthiness in terms of provisions of Section 68

SANDHYA SINGH,ROHIT NAGAR, BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(3) BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

144 and section 144B of the Act treating the entire sum of ₹3,62,68,600/- as unexplained money

NEMICHAND JAIN HUF,BERASIA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year: 2019-20 Nemichand Jain Huf Pcit (Central), Prop. M/S. Mahavir Bhopal बनाम/ Jewellers. Near Bus Stand Vs. Berasia (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aachn1847E Assessee By Shri Govind Rinwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2025

144/- surrendered by assessee during survey. Therefore, according to Ld. PCIT, the non- initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) has rendered the assessment-order as erroneous-cum-prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5. Ld. Representatives further agree that an identical case having same facts has already been decided by ITAT, Indore in Sriyans Kumar Jain HUF Vs. PCIT

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

144 determining a total income of Rs. 1,74,37,487/- after making certain additions. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first-appeal to Ld. CIT(A). During appellate-proceeding, the Ld. CIT(A) admitted the written-submissions of assessee as well as documentary evidences filed by assessee. Ld. CIT(A) also obtained remand-report from Ld. AO as well

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

144 of the Act resulted into high\npitched assessment and considering its turnover and excellent working with past records, one\nmore opportunity of a week's time should have been given to the appellant as requested\ninstead of passing the assessment order in an exparte manner by rejecting books of account\nwhich resulted in determination of income

SUNIL,INDORE vs. ITO 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

144, treating the deposit as unexplained cash credit under Section 68.", "held": "The Tribunal restored the matter to the file

OMPRAKASH JAISWAL,INDORE vs. ACIT-1(1), INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

sections": [ "143(3)", "145(3)", "68", "115BBE", "271AAC", "144" ], "issues": "Whether the AO was justified in rejecting the assessee

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act. As the assessee was treated by the Ld. AO in earlier years as bogus concern for the year under consideration solely relying upon this particular fact that the interest paid to this concern was also disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee to the tune of Rs.69,64,144

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act. As the assessee was treated by the Ld. AO in earlier years as bogus concern for the year under consideration solely relying upon this particular fact that the interest paid to this concern was also disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee to the tune of Rs.69,64,144

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act. As the assessee was treated by the Ld. AO in earlier years as bogus concern for the year under consideration solely relying upon this particular fact that the interest paid to this concern was also disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee to the tune of Rs.69,64,144

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act on account of share application money received from M/s SKS Ispat and Power Limited. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 20. Before us, the Ld. CIt-DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. AO. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the findings

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act on account of share application money received from M/s SKS Ispat and Power Limited. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 20. Before us, the Ld. CIt-DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. AO. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the findings

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act on account of share application money received from M/s SKS Ispat and Power Limited. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 20. Before us, the Ld. CIt-DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. AO. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the findings