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. 52 Agrawal Transport Corporation (P) Ltd & Ors ITA Nos. 651, C.O.No.35/Ind/2019, 331/Ind/2018 & 895/Ind/2019 8.18 It is' important to note here that the lender companies through the director Mr. Deepak Kalani have provided all the necessary details and also recorded their presence before the officers time and again. There

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. 52 Agrawal Transport Corporation (P) Ltd & Ors ITA Nos. 651, C.O.No.35/Ind/2019, 331/Ind/2018 & 895/Ind/2019 8.18 It is' important to note here that the lender companies through the director Mr. Deepak Kalani have provided all the necessary details and also recorded their presence before the officers time and again. There

DHARMEDDRA DOSHI,SANWER ROAD, INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), INDORE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, OPPOSITE WHITE CHURCH, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2017-18 Dharmendra Doshi, Ito, 147-B, Sector-F, 1(1), Sanwer Road Industrial Indore. बनाम/ Area, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Afspd7034G Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal & Shri Harsh Choukse, Ca Revenue By Shri Sanjeev H. Bhagat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2025

section 145(3). Considering the earlier years trend of average cash balance and facts of the case, only the cash of Rs 9,85,000/- deposited on the first instance i.e. 10.11.2016 (which is also almost equal to average cash balance normally seen) is treated as genuine and remaining amount i.e. Rs 32,67,500/- is treated as unexplained

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

section 263 is not permitted to substitute his estimate of income in place of the income estimated by the Assessing Officer. (vii) The Assessing Officer exercises quasi-judicial power vested in him and if he exercises such power in accordance with law and arrive at a conclusion, such conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the Commissioner

THE ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. TURQUISE INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT.LTD., NAGDA

In the result, against total disallowance of Rs

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

section 14A of the Act reference is given to the method provided in Rule 8D of the IT Rules which has following three limbs: (i) the amount of expenditure directly relating to income which does not form part of total income; (ii) Computing of disallowance of interest expenditure incurred during the year which is not directly attributable

RADHESHYAM AGARWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

68, section 69, section 69A,\nsection\n69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of\npenalty, in addition to tax payable under section 115BBE, a sum computed at the rate of ten\nper cent of the tax payable under clause (i) of sub-section

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68 required as per Rule\n129 in accordance of the provisions of section 270AA of the Act\nfor immunity from penalty proceedings u/s 270A, hence order\nu/s 270AA(4) cannot be passed in the case of the assessee and\nimmunity from imposition of penalty cannot be granted to the\nassessee. The case laws quoted by the assessee have been

THE ACIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI YOGESH KUMAR HOTWANI, MANDSAUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 153A, it was found that the assessee has offered Rs. 77,93,500/- as additional income in his return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 to 2012-13 as against undisclosed income of Rs. 3 crores admitted by Shri Shiv Kumar Hotwani on behalf of the assessee. It was explained to the AO vide letter dated

SHRI YOGESH HOTWANI,MANDSAUR vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 153A, it was found that the assessee has offered Rs. 77,93,500/- as additional income in his return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 to 2012-13 as against undisclosed income of Rs. 3 crores admitted by Shri Shiv Kumar Hotwani on behalf of the assessee. It was explained to the AO vide letter dated

M/S. FROLIC REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(3), INDORE

In the result, these three appeals of by different assessees in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11 Avocado Trading Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company, Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4206K Assessment Year: 2010-11 Aspirant Mercantile Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company,Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4207J

Section 68 on the alleged ground that it is unexplained cash credit. Avocado Trading Co. and others ITA Nos.362 to 364/Ind/2012 2. The Appellant prays that the said addition be deleted. GROUND 2: ADDITION OF TRADE ADVANCES AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT 1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred

M/S. ASPIRANT MERCANTILE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(3), INDORE

In the result, these three appeals of by different assessees in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11 Avocado Trading Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company, Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4206K Assessment Year: 2010-11 Aspirant Mercantile Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company,Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4207J

Section 68 on the alleged ground that it is unexplained cash credit. Avocado Trading Co. and others ITA Nos.362 to 364/Ind/2012 2. The Appellant prays that the said addition be deleted. GROUND 2: ADDITION OF TRADE ADVANCES AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT 1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred

M/S. AVOCADO TRADING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(3), INDORE

In the result, these three appeals of by different assessees in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11 Avocado Trading Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company, Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4206K Assessment Year: 2010-11 Aspirant Mercantile Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company,Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4207J

Section 68 on the alleged ground that it is unexplained cash credit. Avocado Trading Co. and others ITA Nos.362 to 364/Ind/2012 2. The Appellant prays that the said addition be deleted. GROUND 2: ADDITION OF TRADE ADVANCES AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT 1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred

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

M/S VYANKTESH CORRUGATORS P LTD,UJJAIN vs. ACIT,CENTRAL-UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2018-19

section 143(3) Rs.2,00,85,130/- 4 Total Additions made by AO and Total Additions of reason thereof Rs.21,49,770/- (i) Rs.12,06,536/- on account of interest expenses (ii) Rs.9,43,234/- on account of alleged undisclosed business profit in respect of shortage of inventories. [Para (13.7) on page no. 62 & 63] 5 Relief granted

C.I. FINLEASE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

68 years R/O at\nHo. No. 30, Mahadev Mandir Road, Behind Sindhi Market, Peerget, Bhopal, Madhya\nPradesh, do hereby affirm that the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the\nbest of my knowledge.\nDate & Place:\nat Bhopal\nPage 13 of 22\nDeponent\nC.I. Finlease Private Limited\nITA No. 396/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13\n3. Ld. AR firstly carried

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

68 required as per Rule 129 in accordance of the provisions of section 270AA of the Act for immunity from penalty proceedings u/s 270A, hence order u/s 270AA(4) cannot be passed in the case of the assessee and immunity from imposition of penalty cannot be granted to the assessee. The case laws quoted by the assessee have been

M/S LIFE CARE INTERNATIONAL,INDORE vs. ACIT-3,(1) , INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

68 of the Act for Rs.2.70 cr. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the alleged loan of Rs.2.70 cr was taken from following five companies: 6 Life Care International ITA No.335 to 337/Ind/2018 S.No Name of the Loan creditors PA No Amount [Rs ] 1 Advantage Dealtrade P Limited AAICA7805Q 50,00,000 2 Axiom Commodeal P Limited AAICA5208K