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

148/- on account of excess stock found during the course of search. 3. The brief facts leading to the case is this that the assessee is engaged in trading and manufacturing business of gold and diamond jewellery. A search operation under Section 132 of the Act was carried out on 28.09.2016 at the business as well as residential premises

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 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

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

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal isallowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1. The decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi [141 ITR 67 (Bom.}] wherein it was held as under:.. 2. The decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal m the case of Smt. ManasiMahendraPitkar vs. ITO [2016I 73 taxmann.com 63 (Mumbai - Trib.} wherein it has held as under:.. 3. The decision

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

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

M/S PLATINUM HORAZINE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

148 Taxman 0573 (All), Dr. V. V. Devsthale v. ITO [1995] 214 ITR 0315 (MP)/ [1996] 84 Taxman 0143 (MP) in support of his claim that delay was not intentional and there was reasonable cause for the same. 3. The learned Sr. D.R., opposed the assessee’s plea for condonation of delay. 4. We have heard the rival submissions

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

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

1 to section 148 and no live link between the alleged information and the assessee. The assessee also challenged the addition under section 68

M.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16

148] 8 M/s. M.P. State Industrial Development B. Enquiry conducted by Ld. AO – no lack of enquiry and C. Application of the mind by Ld. AO 1. Assessee is a Government company in which 100% shareholding is of the Government of Madhya Pradesh. It is engaged in the business of financial assistance for Industrial Development and Infrastructure activity

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

1) were issued from time to time. During assessment-proceeding, the Ld. AO asked the assessee to prove the capital gain, in response to which the assessee made a detailed submission. Observing that the assessee has made an unrealistic non-taxable capital gain of Rs. 90,69,199/- on a very small investment of just Rs. 34,293/- and that

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

SECTION 292C OF THE ACT Your Honours, first of all, the loose papers and other papers found and seized from the premises of some other persons cannot be taken as an evidence under s.292C of the Act against the appellant company. It is therefore, merely on the basis of findings given in the case of some other assessees, without

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

SECTION 292C OF THE ACT Your Honours, first of all, the loose papers and other papers found and seized from the premises of some other persons cannot be taken as an evidence under s.292C of the Act against the appellant company. It is therefore, merely on the basis of findings given in the case of some other assessees, without

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

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

148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132-A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring

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

1,99,847/- on account of estimated brokerage cost incurred by assessee out of unexplained sources. 5. Before proceeding further, we would like to narrate the details of the transactions done by assessee as culled out from the orders of lower- authorities. The assessee claims to have purchased shares of Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd. for a total consideration