THE DCIT-2(1), INDORE vs. M/S. CENTURY 21 MALL (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

167 and 168 /Ind/2016 Asstt.Year : 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-11 AND Asstt.Year 2011-12 Century 21 Malls P.Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ward-2(1) 731-732, Usha Nagar Indore. Extension Above Axis Bank Annapurna Road Indore. PAN : AADCC 0761 A IT(SS)A No.173, 174 and 175 /Ind/2016 Asstt.Year : 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-11 AND ITA No.952/Ind/2016

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S. CENTURE 21 MALL PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

167 and 168 /Ind/2016 Asstt.Year : 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-11 AND Asstt.Year 2011-12 Century 21 Malls P.Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ward-2(1) 731-732, Usha Nagar Indore. Extension Above Axis Bank Annapurna Road Indore. PAN : AADCC 0761 A IT(SS)A No.173, 174 and 175 /Ind/2016 Asstt.Year : 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-11 AND ITA No.952/Ind/2016

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

167(Delhi), Malabar Industries 243 ITR 83(SC) held in favour of the assessee confirming the order of the Tribunal observing as follows:- 19. In the present case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are correct as the CIT has not gone into and has not given any reason for observing that the order passed by the Assessing Officer

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

167(Delhi), Malabar Industries 243 ITR 83(SC) held in favour of the assessee confirming the order of the Tribunal observing as follows:- 19. In the present case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are correct as the CIT has not gone into and has not given any reason for observing that the order passed by the Assessing Officer

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

167(Delhi), Malabar Industries 243 ITR 83(SC) held in favour of the assessee confirming the order of the Tribunal observing as follows:- 19. In the present case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are correct as the CIT has not gone into and has not given any reason for observing that the order passed by the Assessing Officer

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 68 were not applicable. In this context, we place reliance on the judgments submitted at 29-53 of the case law paper book. Therefore, in view of above-mentioned facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements, we humbly Pray to the Hon'ble Bench to delete the impugned addition of Rs. 32,67,500/- u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 12A - list of honors submitted Incomplete details of donors does not mean donations are unaccounted money - Addition oj Donations as cash credit and denying benefit not justified - Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 11, 12A, 68." 3.14 As decided in the cases of Vaishnavi Educations Society vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ITAT Hyderabad Tribunal {B} {20l5} 167

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 12A - list of honors submitted Incomplete details of donors does not mean donations are unaccounted money - Addition oj Donations as cash credit and denying benefit not justified - Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 11, 12A, 68." 3.14 As decided in the cases of Vaishnavi Educations Society vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ITAT Hyderabad Tribunal {B} {20l5} 167

SHRI MANJEET SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT RANGE-3, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Manjeet Singh Bhatia Addl. Cit, Range-3 8/5, Bcc House Indore बनाम/ Manoramaganj Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Agjpb 0022 G Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijayvargiya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023

section 68. The main grounds taken by AO are : (i) Huge share capital and premium were received by those 3 companies; (ii) The companies are Kolkata-based and in recent years, the field officers of Income-tax Department have come across cases where companies registered in Kolkata, Mumbai and Surat are providing Page 2 of 10 Manjeet Singh Bhatia

JASTEJ GOROWARA,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68, the CIT(Appeals) observed that the Assessing Officer had examined the issue in detail and that the assessee had failed to discharge the statutory onus of proving creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the loan transactions. In the absence of any effective rebuttal or evidence from the assessee during appellate proceedings, the CIT(Appeals) upheld the addition made

JASTEJ GOROWARA,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68, the CIT(Appeals) observed that the Assessing Officer had examined the issue in detail and that the assessee had failed to discharge the statutory onus of proving creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the loan transactions. In the absence of any effective rebuttal or evidence from the assessee during appellate proceedings, the CIT(Appeals) upheld the addition made

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

SMT. SANDHYA KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 of the Income tax Act is totally baseless and without any evidence. It is purely based in the Ld AO's assumption. 12. In this regard the Ld. AR relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble ITAT Pune Bench passed in the matter of Smt. Smita P. Patil [2015)55 taxman.com 346 (Pune -Trib.). 13. In support

MOHANLAL KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 of the Income tax Act is totally baseless and without any evidence. It is purely based in the Ld AO's assumption. 12. In this regard the Ld. AR relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble ITAT Pune Bench passed in the matter of Smt. Smita P. Patil [2015)55 taxman.com 346 (Pune -Trib.). 13. In support

SHRI SURESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 of the Income tax Act is totally baseless and without any evidence. It is purely based in the Ld AO's assumption. 12. In this regard the Ld. AR relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble ITAT Pune Bench passed in the matter of Smt. Smita P. Patil [2015)55 taxman.com 346 (Pune -Trib.). 13. In support

SMT. RUKMANI KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 of the Income tax Act is totally baseless and without any evidence. It is purely based in the Ld AO's assumption. 12. In this regard the Ld. AR relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble ITAT Pune Bench passed in the matter of Smt. Smita P. Patil [2015)55 taxman.com 346 (Pune -Trib.). 13. In support

RADHESHYAM KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ACIT4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 of the Income tax Act is totally baseless and without any evidence. It is purely based in the Ld AO's assumption. 12. In this regard the Ld. AR relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble ITAT Pune Bench passed in the matter of Smt. Smita P. Patil [2015)55 taxman.com 346 (Pune -Trib.). 13. In support

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