THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

151 from the assessee is duly reflected 7.5 Copy of bank statement of the assessee duly highlighting the amount as 152 received from the unsecured loan creditor In view of the above documentary evidences, it is apparent that the assessee satisfactorily discharged the primary onus cast upon him under section 68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 to establish

M/S OREF SECURITIES PRIVATE LTD. ,MANDSAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.70/Ind/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Vs. Ito, Mandsaur. M/S.Oref Securities P.Ltd. 69, Agrasen Nagar B/H. Mid India Mandsaur.

151 Section 68: Cash credits -Share application money - No addition shall be made in the hands of the assessee where transaction related to the receipt of share application money are genuine and are fully recorded by the share applicants. 7 x) HONORABLE AHMEDABAD, IT AT TRIBUNAL (A) In The Case of ITO vs. APEX THERM PACKAGING PVT. LTD. When

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

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 him to furnish within such period

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

CHIRAYU CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,BHOPAL vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradchirayu Charitable Pcit (Central), Foundation,Bhopal Indore Bhopal Highway, Bhaisakhedi, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aaaac3656P Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Advocate, Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar, Advs Date Of Hearing 05.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement .02.2021 O R D E R Per Manish Borad, Am.

section 132, it may, in any proceeding under this Act, be presumed— (i ) that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person; (ii ) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and (iii ) that the signature and every other part

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

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

68 of the Act at Rs.28,47,833/- and addition of brokerage expenses at Rs.89,935/-. Again complete details of purchase and sales were filed along with the Demat account and bank statement. However, Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied and he confirmed the view taken by Ld. A.O observing that the assessee is indulged in arranging bogus LTCG

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

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

68 of the Act at Rs.28,47,833/- and addition of brokerage expenses at Rs.89,935/-. Again complete details of purchase and sales were filed along with the Demat account and bank statement. However, Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied and he confirmed the view taken by Ld. A.O observing that the assessee is indulged in arranging bogus LTCG

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

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

68 of the Act at Rs.28,47,833/- and addition of brokerage expenses at Rs.89,935/-. Again complete details of purchase and sales were filed along with the Demat account and bank statement. However, Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied and he confirmed the view taken by Ld. A.O observing that the assessee is indulged in arranging bogus LTCG

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

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

68 of the Act at Rs.28,47,833/- and addition of brokerage expenses at Rs.89,935/-. Again complete details of purchase and sales were filed along with the Demat account and bank statement. However, Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied and he confirmed the view taken by Ld. A.O observing that the assessee is indulged in arranging bogus LTCG

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

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

68 of the Act at Rs.28,47,833/- and addition of brokerage expenses at Rs.89,935/-. Again complete details of purchase and sales were filed along with the Demat account and bank statement. However, Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied and he confirmed the view taken by Ld. A.O observing that the assessee is indulged in arranging bogus LTCG

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

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

68 of the Act at Rs.28,47,833/- and addition of brokerage expenses at Rs.89,935/-. Again complete details of purchase and sales were filed along with the Demat account and bank statement. However, Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied and he confirmed the view taken by Ld. A.O observing that the assessee is indulged in arranging bogus LTCG

BARKHA KHANDELWAL,AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1),INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Barkha Khandelwal Ito -3(1) Aggrieved Assesse Indore 1108, Pinnacle D Dreams, Tower -1 Vs. Near Bhawan Prominent School Pipliyakumar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ajnpk4150B Assessee By Shri Rakesh Gupta, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20 .09.2024

1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal by treating it as defective and not maintainable and that too without any basis, material and evidence available on record and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated u/s 132 or books of accounts, other documents or any other assets are requisitioned u/s 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the assessing officer shall –“ 13. It is also seen that the words ‘to the contrary’ are not mentioned in section

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated u/s 132 or books of accounts, other documents or any other assets are requisitioned u/s 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the assessing officer shall –“ 13. It is also seen that the words ‘to the contrary’ are not mentioned in section

VIRENDRA KUMAR MANDOT,, SADAR BAZAR SAILANA RATLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO-1, RATLAM, RATLAM

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

1,00,000/- ΒΟΙ (002) 26/12/2016 7,77,485 57,633 8,35,118 2,80,000/- ΒΟΙ (002) Total 28,07,500 7. It is also relevant to re-produced details of Total Cash deposited during the year :-- Month Total Cash deposited April 18,70,000 May 18,59,000 June 34,44,500 July 30,96,000 August

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1 kgm Silver bar was sold with a profit in the range of Rs. 500'/- to Rs 800/- during the reference year. In view of the above, gross profit earned on sale of per Silver bar is determined at Rs. 800/- In this regard the reply given for Gross Profit estimation in case of Gold KG Bars is equally applicable

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1 kgm Silver bar was sold with a profit in the range of Rs. 500'/- to Rs 800/- during the reference year. In view of the above, gross profit earned on sale of per Silver bar is determined at Rs. 800/- In this regard the reply given for Gross Profit estimation in case of Gold KG Bars is equally applicable