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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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-order. We re-produce below the relevant paras of first two decisions quoted by Ld. AR: ITAT, Jaipur in ACIT Vs. Sudesh Kumar Gupta (2020) 117 taxmann.com 178: “11. In the instant case, as we have noted

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

1) for A.Ys. 2010- 2011 to 2015-2016. It is also explained that there are unabated assessments except A.Y. 2015-2016 in which the assessments have been abated. Therefore, for each unabated and abated assessments, the authorities below and the Approving Authority [JCIT] shall have to verify the incriminating material found during the course of search or the seized material

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

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

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

154, 155, 158BE and 231 and for the purposes of payment of interest under section 243 or section 244 or, as the case may be, section 244A, this proviso shall also apply accordingly. 4. On the issue of the applicability of special provision vs general Sumati Kumar Kasliwal & others ITANo.181,472/Ind/2017,ITA(SS)No.178,ITANo.468/Ind/2017&C.O.No.31/Ind/2018

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

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

154, 155, 158BE and 231 and for the purposes of payment of interest under section 243 or section 244 or, as the case may be, section 244A, this proviso shall also apply accordingly. 4. On the issue of the applicability of special provision vs general Sumati Kumar Kasliwal & others ITANo.181,472/Ind/2017,ITA(SS)No.178,ITANo.468/Ind/2017&C.O.No.31/Ind/2018

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

154, 155, 158BE and 231 and for the purposes of payment of interest under section 243 or section 244 or, as the case may be, section 244A, this proviso shall also apply accordingly. 4. On the issue of the applicability of special provision vs general Sumati Kumar Kasliwal & others ITANo.181,472/Ind/2017,ITA(SS)No.178,ITANo.468/Ind/2017&C.O.No.31/Ind/2018

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

154, 155, 158BE and 231 and for the purposes of payment of interest under section 243 or section 244 or, as the case may be, section 244A, this proviso shall also apply accordingly. 4. On the issue of the applicability of special provision vs general Sumati Kumar Kasliwal & others ITANo.181,472/Ind/2017,ITA(SS)No.178,ITANo.468/Ind/2017&C.O.No.31/Ind/2018

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

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

154, 155, 158BE and 231 and for the purposes of payment of interest under section 243 or section 244 or, as the case may be, section 244A, this proviso shall also apply accordingly. 4. On the issue of the applicability of special provision vs general Sumati Kumar Kasliwal & others ITANo.181,472/Ind/2017,ITA(SS)No.178,ITANo.468/Ind/2017&C.O.No.31/Ind/2018