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

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

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

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

SATYANARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14

68 - He thus passed a revisional order setting aside assessment - Tribunal noted that Assessing Officer had made detailed enquiries about aforesaid aspect and mere fact that he did not make any reference to said issue in assessment order, could not make said order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenues - Accordingly, Tribunal set aside revisional order - Whether finding recorded

RAM BABU SINGH,BIHAR vs. THE ITO-2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Ram Babu Singh, Income-Tax Officer, Near Gayatri Mandir, 2(1), बनाम/ Saharsa, Bhopal Vs. Bihar (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Cufps2957D Assessee By Shri S.N.Agrawal, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024

154 is not possible to invoke tax rate u/s 115BBE, when the AO has not invoked section 68 to 69D in assessment

JEHAN NUMA PALACE HOTEL PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT/ACIT,5(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

68,90,212/- is beyond the scope of\nadjustments provided in section 143(1)(a) of the Act.\n9.BECAUSE, the Intimation order dated 20.03.2017 passed by the Assessing\nOfficer (CPC) is a non-speaking order wherein the reason for the variance and\nfurther creation of demand was not explained, hence the same is liable to be\nquashed.\n10.BECAUSE

NEMINATH DEVELOPERS,UJJAIN vs. ACIT2(1) , UJJAIN

Appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2015-16 Neminath Developers, Acit 2(1) 105, Mani Trade Centre, Ujjain बनाम/ Shanku Marg Freeganj, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aagfn3566L Assessee By Shri Pavan Ved, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026

section 68 of the Act. XXX (Table of loan transactions – already reproduced in earlier para) In light of the established legal principle that any sum found credited in the books of accounts for a given year, for which the assessee either fails to provide an explanation regarding its nature and source or provides an explanation deemed unsatisfactory

NILIMA KOTHARI,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSTT. CENTRE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

68 of the Act at Rs.24,46,824/-. The AO also made an addition for unexplained expenditure u/s 69C at Rs. 1,22,341/-. Income assessed at Rs.30,11,605/-. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) raising various legal issues and grounds on merit but failed to succeed. 3.2 Now the assesse is in appeal before

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 may be invoked which is not the case here at all 4.19 With due respect, it is submitted that the allegation that the appellant has infused its own money in the grab of unsecured loon is without any basis and not correct and merely on the basis of conjecture or surmises. It is also undisputed fact that

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 may be invoked which is not the case here at all 4.19 With due respect, it is submitted that the allegation that the appellant has infused its own money in the grab of unsecured loon is without any basis and not correct and merely on the basis of conjecture or surmises. It is also undisputed fact that

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 may be invoked which is not the case here at all 4.19 With due respect, it is submitted that the allegation that the appellant has infused its own money in the grab of unsecured loon is without any basis and not correct and merely on the basis of conjecture or surmises. It is also undisputed fact that

M/S SHRI GURMUKHDAS CONTRACTORS P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-CENRRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in I

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

154 of the I.T. Act. Thus, there was inconsistencies and double additions made by the A.O. in various assessment years. It may also be noted that in the present case the facts stated in the impugned orders are that the sales of liquor are made by M/s. JIL to M/s. MAPSCO and Singla Group of cases and that part

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AVILABLE FINANCE LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and interest paid there on has also been disallowed. 5.8 It is seen from the assessment order passed in the present case that the AO has only doubted the creditworthiness of the lender and the genuineness of the transactions and has not disputed the identity of the loan creditors

DY. CIT -1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and interest paid there on has also been disallowed. 5.8 It is seen from the assessment order passed in the present case that the AO has only doubted the creditworthiness of the lender and the genuineness of the transactions and has not disputed the identity of the loan creditors

M/S AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD.,INDORE vs. THEDCIT 1(1) , INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and interest paid there on has also been disallowed. 5.8 It is seen from the assessment order passed in the present case that the AO has only doubted the creditworthiness of the lender and the genuineness of the transactions and has not disputed the identity of the loan creditors

BALKISHAN KOSHAL ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 68- 69 of the Act hence, assessment and penalty appeal-order is prejudice, unjustified and deserve to be set-aside according to law. Page 2 of 8 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Indore vs. NFAC, Delhi ITA Nos.69 & 72/Ind/2024 – A.Ys. 2013-14 3. These appeals are inter-related; therefore they were heard together and are being disposed of by this

BALKISHAN KOUSHAL ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 68- 69 of the Act hence, assessment and penalty appeal-order is prejudice, unjustified and deserve to be set-aside according to law. Page 2 of 8 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Indore vs. NFAC, Delhi ITA Nos.69 & 72/Ind/2024 – A.Ys. 2013-14 3. These appeals are inter-related; therefore they were heard together and are being disposed of by this

RNG CONSTRUCTION CO,INDRA NAGAR vs. DCIT-CPC, CPC-BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshirng Construction Co. Dcit-Cpc बनाम/ 14, Sector-A, Vs. Indira Nagar, Mandideep (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqfr9084B Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025

68, and (b) disallowance of Rs. 5,26,439/- on account of Late GST fee (Rs. 1,000/-), Interest on VAT Tax (Rs. 53,779/-), Interest on TDS (Rs. 488/-), Penal damages (Rs. 1,27,540/-) and VAT Tax of 14-15 (Rs. 3,43,632/-). (iii) While the scrutiny-assessment was underway, the AO processed assessee’s return