SHRI RADHESHYAM PATEL,INDORE vs. THE ITO- 2(3), INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Radheshyam Patel, Ito, Prop. Of M/S. Geetanjali Ward 2(3), बनाम/ & Cold Storage, Indore Bicholi Mardana, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abppp3172N Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, C.A. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2023

section 68. Page 3 of 11 Shri Radheshyam Patel, Indore. Vs. ITO, 2(3), Indore. Assessment year 2007-08 5. Ld. AR relied upon following decisions to support his argument that no addition could be made in such cases: (i) PCIT Vs. Gopal Heritage (P) Ltd. (2021) 133 taxmann.com 173

SHRI SUKHRAM MUKATI,INDORE vs. THE ITO WD-3(3), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of Shri Sukhram Mukati and

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.409&410/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09

68 read with section 69A without verifying the facts of the case. The addition so made being illegal and wrong, the same required to be deleted. 3. That the learned CIT (A) erred in making addition of Rs. 27, 66,000 under section 69 without pinpointing any unexplained deposit. The addition so made being illegal and wrong

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

68. The judgements are respectfully distinguished as it has clearly been held in the preceding discussion that further enquiries are required to be made to ascertain the creditworthiness and genuineness of the companies. M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. The assessee has also submitted that the loans have been repaid through proper banking channel. The submission has no relevance

M/S SHRI GURMUKHDAS CONTRACTORS P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-CENRRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in I

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 of the I.T. Act is not understandable. Thus, the Approving Authority without application of mind and in a most mechanical and technical manner granted approval under section 153D even without reference to any reason in the Order under section 153D of the I.T. Act. We, even, otherwise failed to understand that in search cases how an approval

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

68 of the Act by both the lower authorities. As the issues raised are common these three appeals were heard together and being disposed off by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 4. For the purpose of adjudication we will take up the facts of Smt. Annapurna Maheshwari for Assessment Year 2008-09 relating to I.T.A. No.315/Ind/2012

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

68 of the Act by both the lower authorities. As the issues raised are common these three appeals were heard together and being disposed off by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 4. For the purpose of adjudication we will take up the facts of Smt. Annapurna Maheshwari for Assessment Year 2008-09 relating to I.T.A. No.315/Ind/2012

SHRI PRADEEP MAHESHWARI HUF,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

68 of the Act by both the lower authorities. As the issues raised are common these three appeals were heard together and being disposed off by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 4. For the purpose of adjudication we will take up the facts of Smt. Annapurna Maheshwari for Assessment Year 2008-09 relating to I.T.A. No.315/Ind/2012

PARMANAND SACHDEV,INDORE vs. ITO 5(5), INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

173 "Hon'ble Punjab & Haruana High Court held that where assessee could not explain receipt of alleged share transactions profits credited in his bank accounts, then sale proceeds had to be added as income of assessee under section 68

ITO3(1), INDORE vs. K. K. PATEL FINANCE LTD. , MORENA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-3(1) K.K. Patel Finance Ltd. Indore 44, Jiwaji Ganj, बनाम/ Gandhi Aushdhalaya Road, Vs. Morena (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aabck 4282 G Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 15.12.2022 / 16.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023

section 68, the assessee made submissions with documentary evidences. But on verification of same, the AO was not convinced. Hence, the AO treated the share-application money as ingenuine and made addition. The observations made by AO in this regard are extracted below: “4. Addition u/s 68 of the IT Act. :- 4.1 It is also seen that during

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

section 68 of the Act. Further Ld CIT-A has also simply and easily endorsed finding of Ld AO without making any independent efforts on enquiry on his part , which finding of Ld CIT-A also do not objectively consider the various submissions and arguments of assessee. So we have no hesitation in accepting Ld ARs argument that

THE ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN vs. SHRI SANJAY BAGDI, UJJAIN

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Sanjay Bagdi, Income Tax – 2(1), Vs. 173 Alakhdham Nagar, Ujjain Ujjain (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Ahcpb6349L Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri S.S. Deshpande & Bhavesh Netkar,Cas Date Of Hearing 01.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 14.11.2018 O R D E R

173 Alakhdham Nagar, Ujjain Ujjain (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No.AHCPB6349L Revenue by Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr.DR Assessee by S/Shri S.S. Deshpande & Bhavesh Netkar,CAs Date of Hearing 01.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement 14.11.2018 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned appeal is filed at the instance of Revenue pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13 and is directed

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P LTD., INDORE

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

68 in the immediately preceding assessment year. (xii) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 94,11,950/- made on account of disallowance of interest made to certain parties who not existed in A.Y.2008-09 which has been rightly done by the AO to keep the issue alive. (xiii) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 94,11,950/- made

M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT -CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE

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

68 in the immediately preceding assessment year. (xii) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 94,11,950/- made on account of disallowance of interest made to certain parties who not existed in A.Y.2008-09 which has been rightly done by the AO to keep the issue alive. (xiii) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 94,11,950/- made

THE DCIT-1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD., INDORE

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

68 in the immediately preceding assessment year. (xii) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 94,11,950/- made on account of disallowance of interest made to certain parties who not existed in A.Y.2008-09 which has been rightly done by the AO to keep the issue alive. (xiii) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 94,11,950/- made

M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT RANGE 1(1), INDORE

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

68 in the immediately preceding assessment year. (xii) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 94,11,950/- made on account of disallowance of interest made to certain parties who not existed in A.Y.2008-09 which has been rightly done by the AO to keep the issue alive. (xiii) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 94,11,950/- made

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

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

173, as also relied upon by the assessee and the ld. CIT(A), is also applicable to the case of the assessee. The Hon’ble Court, at para (11), was pleased to hold as under: “11. The further case of the appellant-revenue that in view of section 69A of the said Act the benefit of deduction under Chapter

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

173, as also relied upon by the assessee and the ld. CIT(A), is also applicable to the case of the assessee. The Hon’ble Court, at para (11), was pleased to hold as under: “11. The further case of the appellant-revenue that in view of section 69A of the said Act the benefit of deduction under Chapter