SHRI VARAD MEHTA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Shri Varad Mehta, Dcit 1(1), B-4/301, Paras City, Vs. Bhopal Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aflpm6733Q Revenue By Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Girish Agrawal,Ca Date Of Hearing 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2018 O R D E R

68, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Assessing Officer found a sum of Rs. 2,01,000 in books of account of assessee - Assessing Officer issued notice to assessee asking him to explain source of said amount - Assessee replied that he borrowed same from different creditors _ However, despite best efforts, assessee could not secure creditors

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

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

section 68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 was not justified and was 27 Sanjay Lunawat ITA No.396/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.32/Ind/2018 rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A) as the assessee filed requisite documentary evidences so as to justify the identity and creditworthiness of these parties and genuineness of the transactions as entered into with them. Thus, we confirm

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

68.". 4.12 Similarly in the case of Balbir Chand Maini Vs CIT [2011] 12 taxrnann.com 276 (Punjab & Haryana} / [2011] 201 Taxman 94 (Punjab & Haryana) (MAG.) /[2012] 340 ITR 161 (Punjab & Haryana) / [2012] 247 CTR 468 (Punjab & Haryana), Hon'ble Court held:- "Section 69 of the Income-Tax Act,1961-Unexplained investments. AY.1998-99. During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officers found that

DECENT INDUSTRIES P. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Decent Industries Ito-1(2), Private Ltd, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Corporate Park, बनाम/ Db City Area Hills, Vs. Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeca6271G Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta & Shri N.K. Gupta Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

161 Taxman 169/291 ITR 278 held that:- “A bare reading of section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, suggests that (i) there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by the assessee, (ii) such credit has to be a sum of money during the previous year; and (iii) either (a) the assessee offers no explanation

THE DCIT, 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. MODERN LABORATORIES, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ ./ ./ I.T.A. No.277 & Co.16/Ind/2014 ./ "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09

68 of the Act. Out of this the Ld. CIT (A) deleted addition of Rs. 1,33,00,000 by treating same as genuine transaction. The assessee has borrowed fund from various parties of which confirmation, together with PAN numbers, bank statements and income-tax returns were furnished. In most of the cases, notice under section 133(6) have

ITO 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S AMKAY COLONISERS & BUILDERS P LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ito 1(1) M/S. Amkay Colonisers & Bhopal Builders Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 16, Amar Stambh, Z-1, M.P. Nagar Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue ) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaeca 6272 F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.12.2022

1)(c) are being initiated for concealing the particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 9. During appellate proceeding, Ld. CIT(A), however, deleted the addition by observing and holding thus: “10. Ground No. 4:- Through this ground of appeal the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs. 3,75,00,000/- on account bogus cash credit

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

1,06,99,464/- for A.Y. 10-11 and Rs. 3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics

THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

1,06,99,464/- for A.Y. 10-11 and Rs. 3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

1,06,99,464/- for A.Y. 10-11 and Rs. 3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics

M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

1,06,99,464/- for A.Y. 10-11 and Rs. 3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics

M/S. S.R. FERRO ALLOYS,JHABUA vs. THE PCIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

68 of the Act. Failure of the AO to conduct necessary and proper inquiry renders the order passed by the AO as erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He has relied upon the explanation (2) to section 263(1) of the Act. He has relied upon the impugned order

KUSUM YADAV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

161 Taxman 169/291 ITR\n278 the Apex Court held that:\n'A bare reading of section 68 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, suggests\nthat (i) there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by\nthe assessee; (ii) such credit has to be a sum of money during the\nprevious year; and (Hi) either

OMPRAKASH JAISWAL,INDORE vs. ACIT-1(1), INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

1) has not been\nregularly followed by the assessee, or income has not been computed in\naccordance with the standards notified under sub-section (2), the\nAssessing Officer may make an assessment in the manner provided\nin section 144.\"\n8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that for the purposes of rejecting\nthe books of accounts

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

161 A.Y. 2015- (SC) 16 15 Interest is The AO disallowed the allowable on claim of the assessee genuine for interest only on the borrowing ground that the unsecured loans on which the interest have been paid are not genuine. Once, such loans are considered as genuine, then the entire interest would be allowable u/s. 36(1)(iii). 12.1 Reference

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

161 A.Y. 2015- (SC) 16 15 Interest is The AO disallowed the allowable on claim of the assessee genuine for interest only on the borrowing ground that the unsecured loans on which the interest have been paid are not genuine. Once, such loans are considered as genuine, then the entire interest would be allowable u/s. 36(1)(iii). 12.1 Reference

SHRI NITIN BOTHRA,INDORE vs. HE PCIT -1 INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Nitin Bothra Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abqpb0064J Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

68,69,69A, 69B 69C & 69D, the question of invoking the provisions of section 115BBE in his case could be completely out of question.” Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of ITAT Bangalore in ITA No. 466/Bang/2020 Sri Ashish Prasanna Kumar Jain L/R of BN Prasanna Kumar Vs. PCIT, Mysore dated 19-07-2022, a copy of which

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

161 (Guj.)\nHeld, \" that there was no material brought on\nrecord to establish that purchases or expenses\nwere inflated or sales suppressed, the Tribunal\nwas fully justified in coming to the conclusion that\nthe provisions of section 145(2) could not be\ninvoked,".\nCIT vs. Anand Kumar\nModi (2015) 2 ITJ\nOnline 668\n(Jharkhand)\nHeld that “addition made

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

161). Further, no link between the assessee and alleged exit-providers could be established by Ld. AO. In fact, during appellate proceedings, the details of persons who bought assessee’s shares was obtained form stock exchange. All these persons were individuals and not corporate entities as alleged by Ld.AO and identified by investigation wing as entities belonging to various entry