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

68 or 69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections

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

Appeals are dismissed

1.T. Act.\"\n57. The AO has made this addition in Para 7 of assessment-order under\nthe hearing “Introduction of Capital”. The AO has noted the inferences\ngathered by him from Capital A/cs of 7 partners of assessee-firm and\nultimately made an addition of Rs.4,05,38,902/- [this figure is stated to be\na sum total credits

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

Appeals are dismissed

1.T. Act.\"\n57. The AO has made this addition in Para 7 of assessment-order under\nthe hearing “Introduction of Capital”. The AO has noted the inferences\ngathered by him from Capital A/cs of 7 partners of assessee-firm and\nultimately made an addition of Rs.4,05,38,902/- [this figure is stated to be\na sum total credits

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

68. The judgements are respectfully distinguished as it has clearly been held in the preceding discussion that further enquiries are required to be made to ascertain the creditworthiness and genuineness of the companies. M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. The assessee has also submitted that the loans have been repaid through proper banking channel. The submission has no relevance

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

M/S KOHINOOR ELASTICS P LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,260/- which is bad in law and excessive. 3. The assessee company filed its return declaring total income at Rs. 8,63,43,150/-. The CPC, Bangalore processed this return and made addition of Rs. 43,00,281 under Section 36(1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 (1), INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. (M.P), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the revenue stands

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14 Dcit-2(1), M/S. Dthri Health Care Indore Vs. Pvt. Ltd (M.P), Pu-4, Scheme No.54, Near A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aabcd4095N Revenue By Shri R.P. Mourya, Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri Sumit Neema, Sr.Adv & Gagan Tiwari, Adv Date Of Hearing 17.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2019 O R D E R

1. Income on account of health camp Rs.3,26,00,730 2. Expenses incurred in organizing the health camp Rs. 65,19,150 Dthri Health Care Pvt. Ltd 3. Expenses/material used for Organizing the health camp Rs. 50,68,352 11. On the basis of these documents income works out to Rs.2,10,13,228/- (Gross receipt Rs.3

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

68 in the case of the assessee by stating that the recipient society should also be in a position to identity the donors and establish the capacity to give a donation of the amount mentioned against their names. In this context, reliance is placed on the decision of the Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Hans

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

68 in the case of the assessee by stating that the recipient society should also be in a position to identity the donors and establish the capacity to give a donation of the amount mentioned against their names. In this context, reliance is placed on the decision of the Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Hans

MALWA OXYGEN AND INDUSTRIAL GASES PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECTOR C, INDUSTRIAL AREA vs. AO-RATLAM/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, RATLAM/DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

150% of aggregate expenditure of Rs.52,48,330/-\n[Revenue expenditure of Rs.24,79,955/- (+) Capital expenditure of Rs.\n27,68,375/-] in terms of provision of section 35(2AB) applicable at the\nrelevant time. The AO asked assessee to furnish various details/\ndocuments/reports/certificates in support of claim and the assessee filed\nreplies [Paras

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

SAPAN SHAH,INDORE vs. ACIT-4(I), INDORE

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

1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,39,230/- under section 68, whereas section 68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine

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

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

1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,39,230/- under section 68, whereas section 68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine

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

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

1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,39,230/- under section 68, whereas section 68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine

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

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

1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,39,230/- under section 68, whereas section 68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine

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

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

1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,39,230/- under section 68, whereas section 68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine

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

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

1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,39,230/- under section 68, whereas section 68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine