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

68 Rs.1,20,00,000/-are treated as payments made by the assessee out of his undisclosed sources of income and taxed in the A.Y. 2015-16. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the IT are initiated separately for A.Ys 2015-16.” 24. It is pertinent to note that in the statement recorded

DCIT,CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI KRIHNA KUMAR VERMA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI (Accountant Member)

153A of the Act and the Assessing Officer has accepted the return income shown in the return filed u/s 139 (1) of the Act as assessed income of the assessee. He further explained that no further addition u/s 69A or 69B of the Act has been made against the assessee in the assessment order. 5ITA No.185/Ind/2020 DCIT vs. Shri Krishna

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

68,000/- (22.50 – 13.0632) i.e. Rs. 4,71,84,000/- is received by the assessee as unaccounted receipts for sale of land at Mayakhedi, which was added to the income of the appellant for AY 2012-13. It is also seen that my predecessor in office had decided the first appeal for AY 2012-13 vide order dated 24.05.2017 wherein

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

68,000/- (22.50 – 13.0632) i.e. Rs. 4,71,84,000/- is received by the assessee as unaccounted receipts for sale of land at Mayakhedi, which was added to the income of the appellant for AY 2012-13. It is also seen that my predecessor in office had decided the first appeal for AY 2012-13 vide order dated 24.05.2017 wherein

SHRIMATI SHARDA KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (I), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

b. 1 to 6 c. Sharda Kasliwal c.3,56,60,000 c. 1 to 6 d.Nishant Finance d.3,08,32,825 d. 1 to 6 Pvt. Ltd e.Manoj Kasliwal e.3,56,50,000 e. 1 to 6 f.Pumarth Infrastructure f.4,08,00,000 f. 4 to 8 Pvt.Ltd 4. Income Sumati Kumar 2013-14 Rs.13

PARTH KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (I), INDORE , INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

b. 1 to 6 c. Sharda Kasliwal c.3,56,60,000 c. 1 to 6 d.Nishant Finance d.3,08,32,825 d. 1 to 6 Pvt. Ltd e.Manoj Kasliwal e.3,56,50,000 e. 1 to 6 f.Pumarth Infrastructure f.4,08,00,000 f. 4 to 8 Pvt.Ltd 4. Income Sumati Kumar 2013-14 Rs.13

M/S NISHANT FINANCE PVT.LTD,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL (I), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

b. 1 to 6 c. Sharda Kasliwal c.3,56,60,000 c. 1 to 6 d.Nishant Finance d.3,08,32,825 d. 1 to 6 Pvt. Ltd e.Manoj Kasliwal e.3,56,50,000 e. 1 to 6 f.Pumarth Infrastructure f.4,08,00,000 f. 4 to 8 Pvt.Ltd 4. Income Sumati Kumar 2013-14 Rs.13

SUMATI KUMAR KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

b. 1 to 6 c. Sharda Kasliwal c.3,56,60,000 c. 1 to 6 d.Nishant Finance d.3,08,32,825 d. 1 to 6 Pvt. Ltd e.Manoj Kasliwal e.3,56,50,000 e. 1 to 6 f.Pumarth Infrastructure f.4,08,00,000 f. 4 to 8 Pvt.Ltd 4. Income Sumati Kumar 2013-14 Rs.13

MANOJ KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (1), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

b. 1 to 6 c. Sharda Kasliwal c.3,56,60,000 c. 1 to 6 d.Nishant Finance d.3,08,32,825 d. 1 to 6 Pvt. Ltd e.Manoj Kasliwal e.3,56,50,000 e. 1 to 6 f.Pumarth Infrastructure f.4,08,00,000 f. 4 to 8 Pvt.Ltd 4. Income Sumati Kumar 2013-14 Rs.13

DYPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. , INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

b. 1 to 6 c. Sharda Kasliwal c.3,56,60,000 c. 1 to 6 d.Nishant Finance d.3,08,32,825 d. 1 to 6 Pvt. Ltd e.Manoj Kasliwal e.3,56,50,000 e. 1 to 6 f.Pumarth Infrastructure f.4,08,00,000 f. 4 to 8 Pvt.Ltd 4. Income Sumati Kumar 2013-14 Rs.13

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD.,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

b. 1 to 6 c. Sharda Kasliwal c.3,56,60,000 c. 1 to 6 d.Nishant Finance d.3,08,32,825 d. 1 to 6 Pvt. Ltd e.Manoj Kasliwal e.3,56,50,000 e. 1 to 6 f.Pumarth Infrastructure f.4,08,00,000 f. 4 to 8 Pvt.Ltd 4. Income Sumati Kumar 2013-14 Rs.13

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 153A, the assessment proceedings were conducted for A.Y. 2012-13 and in the course of assessment proceedings, all the above documents referred in para 4 above, and also all other documents referred to in para 2 & 3 above were again furnished before the learned A.O. The assessee had also furnished a detailed reply in support

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

68 liable to deleted. The ld.CIT(A) in turn deleted the same, by holding that no incriminating documents/evidences in respect of these loans were found during the course of search and those additions were outside the purview of section 153A. Therefore, since the loans taken were found to be genuine, disallowance of interest on such loans was not valid

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

68 liable to deleted. The ld.CIT(A) in turn deleted the same, by holding that no incriminating documents/evidences in respect of these loans were found during the course of search and those additions were outside the purview of section 153A. Therefore, since the loans taken were found to be genuine, disallowance of interest on such loans was not valid

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, 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

68 liable to deleted. The ld.CIT(A) in turn deleted the same, by holding that no incriminating documents/evidences in respect of these loans were found during the course of search and those additions were outside the purview of section 153A. Therefore, since the loans taken were found to be genuine, disallowance of interest on such loans was not valid

SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

68,34,975/- as accepted in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 did not fall within the definition of ‘undisclosed income’ as provided in Explanation to section 271AAB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961; hence, there arises no question of levy of penalty of Rs. 6,83,498/- under section

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

68, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. Page 3 of 13 ITANo.85/Ind/2024 Barkha Khandelwal 13. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action

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

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

B : Appellant V/s ACIT-4(1), Indore : Respondent Revenue by Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR Assessee by S/Shri S.N. Agrawal & Bhavesh Agrawal, CAs Date of Hearing 07.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 13.09.2021 Sanjay Lunawat ITA No.396/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.32/Ind/2018 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M The above captioned appeal & Cross-objection for Assessment Year 2010-11 are directed against