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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of 30% is clear. The amendment in section 115BBE(2) w.e.f. 01.04.2017 is only clarificatory and to avoid litigation. The income surrendered by the appellant during the course of the search has the character of items included in section

SMT. ARCHANA CHANDAK,INDORE vs. ITO 3(2), INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal isallowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the addition ofRs. 27,57,710/- is bad in law and is liable to be deleted. 2. Charging, the interest u/s. 234A and 234B of the Act: That the Ld. assessing officer erred in charging the interest u/s. 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. ITA No.983/Ind/2019 (Smt. Archana

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 of the Act to justify the identity and creditworthiness of 43 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others the investor company and genuineness of the transactions entered into with the said company. Further, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) have not been controverted by the Ld. CIT-DR by bringing any contrary material on record. Hence

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 of the Act to justify the identity and creditworthiness of 43 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others the investor company and genuineness of the transactions entered into with the said company. Further, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) have not been controverted by the Ld. CIT-DR by bringing any contrary material on record. Hence

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 of the Act to justify the identity and creditworthiness of 43 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others the investor company and genuineness of the transactions entered into with the said company. Further, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) have not been controverted by the Ld. CIT-DR by bringing any contrary material on record. Hence

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

Section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year the same may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing

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

KUNAL VYAS,INDORE vs. ITO 4(1), IND, MAIN BUILDING, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 of the Act and ₹7,75,000/- under section 69 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals). Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised multiple grounds challenging the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 148

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

Section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year the same may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI RAUNAK MARU, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

148 in view of the non obstante clause in section 153A and also in view of the decision of Honourable Jurisdictional High Court as discussed above. Accordingly, I hold that the reassessment proceedings initiated in this case are without jurisdiction. Thus ground no 4 of the appeal is allowed. 16. Ground No 5- The appellant has also raised

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1,, INDORE vs. SHRI RAJUL BHARGAVA, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

148 in view of the non obstante clause in section 153A and also in view of the decision of Honourable Jurisdictional High Court as discussed above. Accordingly, I hold that the reassessment proceedings initiated in this case are without jurisdiction. Thus ground no 4 of the appeal is allowed. 16. Ground No 5- The appellant has also raised

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

68 in the year under appeal................." 17. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition made by the Ld. AO observed as follows: “5.14 The appellant has submitted various documents in support of its claim. The said documents were verified by this office. After verification of the same, following facts emerge out which

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

68 in the year under appeal................." 17. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition made by the Ld. AO observed as follows: “5.14 The appellant has submitted various documents in support of its claim. The said documents were verified by this office. After verification of the same, following facts emerge out which

DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

148 on the ground that the assessee has earned suspicious long term capital gain by taking bogus entries through manipulation in stock market. It was further inferred that the assessee has taken benefit of section 10(38) by engaging in long term capital gain on sale of shares of VAS Infra. The has neither earned any 10 Shivnarayan Sharma

SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

148 on the ground that the assessee has earned suspicious long term capital gain by taking bogus entries through manipulation in stock market. It was further inferred that the assessee has taken benefit of section 10(38) by engaging in long term capital gain on sale of shares of VAS Infra. The has neither earned any 10 Shivnarayan Sharma

PRAYANK JAIN,INDORE vs. ACIT5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

148 on the ground that the assessee has earned suspicious long term capital gain by taking bogus entries through manipulation in stock market. It was further inferred that the assessee has taken benefit of section 10(38) by engaging in long term capital gain on sale of shares of VAS Infra. The has neither earned any 10 Shivnarayan Sharma

MANISH GOVIND AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

148 on the ground that the assessee has earned suspicious long term capital gain by taking bogus entries through manipulation in stock market. It was further inferred that the assessee has taken benefit of section 10(38) by engaging in long term capital gain on sale of shares of VAS Infra. The has neither earned any 10 Shivnarayan Sharma