THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act on account of share application money received from M/s SKS Ispat and Power Limited. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 20. Before us, the Ld. CIt-DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. AO. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the findings

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act on account of share application money received from M/s SKS Ispat and Power Limited. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 20. Before us, the Ld. CIt-DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. AO. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the findings

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act on account of share application money received from M/s SKS Ispat and Power Limited. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 20. Before us, the Ld. CIt-DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. AO. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the findings

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

164-166 of the PB. Also, kindly refer the judgements relied 54-75 of the case law paper book. • Without prejudice to the same, since the Ld. AO had rejected the books of accounts U/s 145(3), the provisions of Section 68

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

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

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

DANISH HEALTH CARE P LTD ,UJJAIN vs. PR CIT -1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Danish Health Care Pr. Cit-1, Private Limited, Indore बनाम/ 76/27, Maxi Road, Industrial Area, Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaecd5554F Assessee By Ms.Ruchira Negi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2023

164/- from directors and Rs. 15,90,575/- from others. The AO has not examined this issue in terms of section 68

DCIT 5 (1), INDORE vs. M/S SANVERWALA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2012-13 Dcit-5(1) M/S. Sanverwala Jewellers Pvt. Indore Ltd. बनाम/ 12, Chhota Sarafa Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaocs7650K Appellant By Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By S/Shri S.N. Agrawal & Bhavesh Agrawal, Ars Date Of Hearing: 22.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

68 of the Act. In cases of share application / share capital prior to the insertion of the explanation the appellant company needs to prove identity of the share applicant only. However, in the present case in hand the appellant has not only proved the identity of the share applicants but also proved the creditworthiness of the share applicant and genuineness

M/S. GYAN SAGAR SOCIETY,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11 Gyan Sagar Society, Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Mahesh Thahirani, Vs. Income Tax-Circle 1(1), L, Triveni Colony, Indore Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Akgpj5075N Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Morish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Advocates Date Of Hearing 17.7.2018 Date Of 26.7.2018 Pronouncement

68 taxmann.com 152 (Cochin) (b) Punjab Education Society (2018) 168 ITD 109 (Asr.) (c) St. Jude Convent Schools (2017) 164 ITD 594 (Asr.) (d) CIT vs Society for Promotion of Education, Allahabad (2017) 67 taxmann.com 264 (Supreme Court) and (e ) CIT Vs Sahitya Sadawart Samiti Jaipur (2017) 88 taxmann.com 703 (Raj). 6. Further referring to the income earned from running

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI NEERAJ MANDLOI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

section 147/148. 4. Facts, in brief, are that the assessee filed original return of income on 01.5.2009 declaring total income at Rs.7,06,164/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted at the business and residential premises of Shri Mukesh Sharma on 21.7.2008 wherein some documents were seized. As per the Assessing Officer

NHDC LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT - 3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, Cross appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes and CO is dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninhdc Limited Dcit, 3(1) F-01, Nhdc Parisar, Shyamla Bhopal Vs. Hills Bhopal -462013 (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 1732G Dcit, 3(1) Nhdc Limited Bhopal F-01, Nhdc Parisar, Vs. Shyamla Hills Bhopal -462013 (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn 1732G

68,80,417/-. In the scrutiny assessment completed u/s 143(3) the AO has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of following income: A.Y.2015-16 ISPS OSPS Unit Interest from beneficiary state 22,73,82,354 52,62,61,934/- Interest on loans and advances to 1,29,92,774/- 49,22,671 employees Others

DCIT 3 (1) , BHOPAL vs. M/S NHDC LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, Cross appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes and CO is dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninhdc Limited Dcit, 3(1) F-01, Nhdc Parisar, Shyamla Bhopal Vs. Hills Bhopal -462013 (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 1732G Dcit, 3(1) Nhdc Limited Bhopal F-01, Nhdc Parisar, Vs. Shyamla Hills Bhopal -462013 (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn 1732G

68,80,417/-. In the scrutiny assessment completed u/s 143(3) the AO has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of following income: A.Y.2015-16 ISPS OSPS Unit Interest from beneficiary state 22,73,82,354 52,62,61,934/- Interest on loans and advances to 1,29,92,774/- 49,22,671 employees Others

THE ITO, (EXEMPTION), INDORE vs. M/S. N.T.THOMAS MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL & DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena1.आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 139/Ind/2015 2. I.T.A. No. 150/Ind/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2011-12

164 ITR 439 (Raj.) and committed no error in holding this issue in favour of the assessee.” 8. We are of the view that excess expenditure incurred for charitable purposes in the year is liable to be adjusted against the income of the succeeding year which computing taxable income of the succeeding year. Since, the provision of Section

M/S. N.T.THOMAS MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL AND DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 1(2), INDORE

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena1.आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 139/Ind/2015 2. I.T.A. No. 150/Ind/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2011-12

164 ITR 439 (Raj.) and committed no error in holding this issue in favour of the assessee.” 8. We are of the view that excess expenditure incurred for charitable purposes in the year is liable to be adjusted against the income of the succeeding year which computing taxable income of the succeeding year. Since, the provision of Section

THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S MOENUS TEXTILE PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10

164 pages. 7. We have heard rival contentions carefully perused the records placed before us. Apropos to Ground no.1 raised by the revenue, we find that it relates to the addition of Rs.1,31,50,000/- made by the ld. AO u/s Moenus Textile P. Ltd. 68 of the Act for the unexplained share application money received from following three

ACIT CENTRAL-2 INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI .GAURAV TEKRIWAL, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

section 56 of the Act.” 7. During appellate proceeding, Ld. CIT(A) reversed the action of Ld. AO. Ld. CIT(A) accepted assessee’s claim of long-term capital gain by observing as under: “4.3 I have duly considered tire facts of the case, the AO's order and the appellant’s written submission find that in support

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

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused