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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 139 etc., or by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. In the present case, the question of making of a return is not in issue and the only question is with regard to the second portion of the proviso

M/S SUPREMO INDIA LTD ,INDORE vs. THE AIT CENTRAL 3, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

3. DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma in ITANo.185/Ind/2020, ITAT, Indore 4.DCIT vs. M/s. Punjab Retail Pvt. Ltd. ITANo.677/Ind/2019 ITAT, Indore 5.Gandhir Ram vs. Pr. CIT ITANo.121/Chd/2021, ITAT, Chandigarh 6. ACIT vs. M/s Signature Builders IT(SS) ANo.184 to 186/Ind/2018, ITAT, Indore 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the assessee itself has declared the excess stock

M/S NIKHIL ESTATE P LTD,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE (3) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Nikhil Estate Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Central)-3 M-102, Mezzanine, Floor, Indore Dhan Trident, P. No.B-3 Pu- Vs. 4, Sch. No.54, Vijay Nagar Square, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 8056 D Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.06.2023

3). DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma in ITANo.185/Ind/2020, ITAT, Indore (4).DCIT vs. M/s. Punjab Retail Pvt. Ltd. ITANo.677/Ind/2019 ITAT, Indore (5).Gandhir Ram vs. Pr. CIT ITANo.121/Chd/2021, ITAT, Chandigarh (6). ACIT vs. M/s Signature Builders IT(SS) ANo.184 to 186/Ind/2018, ITAT, Indore 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that even if the assesse has recorded

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

3,83,080). Ld. AR submitted that the premium of Rs. 990/- received by assessee in preceding AY has been accepted by department without any objection. Therefore, the AO is wrong in raising objection in current year. Without prejudice, Ld. AR submitted that neither the assessee is obligated to explain fair value for section 68

THE ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. M/S. SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by the Revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13

3) and no addition has been made on these advances given in earlier years. Thus, the advances given in the earlier years stand accepted by the Department. 6. Assessee submits that these are not cash credits but are refund of trade advances in the form of cash. Recovery of advances given cannot be treated as cash credits. Details

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

172 TTJ 721 (KOL) has..........virtually the whole law on 263. It has answered following questions most clarity; Q. Whether the enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer in such cases can be as a proper enquriy ? A. Though the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 133(6) but it failed to comprehend the rationale or logic behind

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

172 TIJ 721(KOL) has considered virtually the whole law on 263. It has answered following questions with utmost clarity: Whether the enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer in such Q. cases can be construed as proper enquiry? A. Though the Assessing Officer issued notices. under secti.on133(6) but it failed to comprehend the rationale or logic behind

M/S. VPA CIVILCON (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & T.R. Senthil Kumar

172 ITR 696) in which it has been held that there was no ground for doubt in the transaction. Similar view has been taken by Honourable Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mrs Sunita Bachani (184 ITR 121, 123). Reference is further invited to Honourable Delhi High Court Decision in case of CIT vs. Stellar Investments

ASHOK KUMAR MOONAT,RATLAM vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-3), INDORE, INDORE

68 to 69D r.w.s. 115BBE\ncannot be applied to his case. The assessee's reply is re-produced by\nAO in Para 5 / Pages 2 to 13 of assessment-order. However, vide\nParas 6 to 8 of assessment-order, the AO rejected assessee's\nsubmission and taxed the surrendered income of Rs. 75,00,770/-\nrelatable to excess-stock

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

SECTION 292C OF THE ACT Your Honours, first of all, the loose papers and other papers found and seized from the premises of some other persons cannot be taken as an evidence under s.292C of the Act against the appellant company. It is therefore, merely on the basis of findings given in the case of some other assessees, without

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

SECTION 292C OF THE ACT Your Honours, first of all, the loose papers and other papers found and seized from the premises of some other persons cannot be taken as an evidence under s.292C of the Act against the appellant company. It is therefore, merely on the basis of findings given in the case of some other assessees, without

M/S. BHANDARI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

68,71,414 remuneration and [ITA No.355/Ind/2017] [Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre] interest to the partners Profit after excluding other income & 2,10,72,278 49,76,658 6,32,77,054 3,36,60,134 depreciation (D)={A-B+C} Profit ratio (D/A) 28.99% 4.70% 16.84% 12.65% Consequently the profit ratio is positive and is better than the immediately preceding

JYOTI GOYAL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed as mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Jyoti Goyal, Dcit, 18, Shyamla Hills, 1(1), बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abbpg3493P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

172 ITR 250 (S.C.), wherein it was stated that once a person is in possession of the stated money, the burden of proof is on him to show he is not the owner. The Hon'ble Court laid down as under :- “6….. There is a contention was raised that the provision in section 110 where a person was found

RAMANLAL PIRODIA,RATLAM vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-3, AAYKAR BHAWAN

68 to 69D r.w.s. 115BBE cannot\nbe applied to his case. The assessee's reply is re-produced by AO in Para 6\nof assessment-order. However, vide Paras 7 to 9 of assessment-order, the\nAO rejected assessee's submission and although the AO accepted the\nadditional income of Rs. 1,80,27,537/- as declared by assessee

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, LOCATION

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

3 of 20 ITANo.451 to 454/Ind/2023 Anil Dhakad 2020-21 13,20,000/- 2021-22 7,50,000/- Total 35,70,000/- The AO did not accept the said receipt as business income of the assessee and invoked the provisions of section 69A by treating the said cash receipt as unexplained money and taxed the same

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

3 of 20 ITANo.451 to 454/Ind/2023 Anil Dhakad 2020-21 13,20,000/- 2021-22 7,50,000/- Total 35,70,000/- The AO did not accept the said receipt as business income of the assessee and invoked the provisions of section 69A by treating the said cash receipt as unexplained money and taxed the same

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

3 of 20 ITANo.451 to 454/Ind/2023 Anil Dhakad 2020-21 13,20,000/- 2021-22 7,50,000/- Total 35,70,000/- The AO did not accept the said receipt as business income of the assessee and invoked the provisions of section 69A by treating the said cash receipt as unexplained money and taxed the same

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. AASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

3 of 20 ITANo.451 to 454/Ind/2023 Anil Dhakad 2020-21 13,20,000/- 2021-22 7,50,000/- Total 35,70,000/- The AO did not accept the said receipt as business income of the assessee and invoked the provisions of section 69A by treating the said cash receipt as unexplained money and taxed the same