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

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

183 of the paper book. Further, we are of the view that the law is no more res-integra that second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1st April, 2013 is declaratory and curative in nature and it shall have retrospective effect from

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,732/- 18 3. Shri Utpal Goyal 1,31,868/- 18 4. Shri Narendra Barta 8,58,336/- 16 Total 45,65,847/- 5. According to the Ld. AO, such excess interest to the persons covered under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act was not available in terms of the provisions of the said Section and thus

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,732/- 18 3. Shri Utpal Goyal 1,31,868/- 18 4. Shri Narendra Barta 8,58,336/- 16 Total 45,65,847/- 5. According to the Ld. AO, such excess interest to the persons covered under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act was not available in terms of the provisions of the said Section and thus

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,732/- 18 3. Shri Utpal Goyal 1,31,868/- 18 4. Shri Narendra Barta 8,58,336/- 16 Total 45,65,847/- 5. According to the Ld. AO, such excess interest to the persons covered under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act was not available in terms of the provisions of the said Section and thus

INCOME TAX OFFICER -5(1), INDORE vs. SHRI ASHISH KUMAR BHATIA, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act: “2.1 Remand report submitted by the AO "The assesses Shri Ashish Kumar Bhatia, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 26.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 2,20,330/-. Assessee derives income ITO vs. Shri Ashish Kumar Bhatia Asst.Year –2014-15 - 4 – from salary, income from house property and income from

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

section 80IB(10) amounting to Rs. 1,60,73,981; Rs. 3,56,08,183; and Rs. 2,68

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

section 80IB(10) amounting to Rs. 1,60,73,981; Rs. 3,56,08,183; and Rs. 2,68

SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN CHOURSIYA, RAJGARH vs. ITO, RAJGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal i

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 without properly appreciating the facts of the case and submission made before him even when the said agricultural land was purchased in tile previous year 2012-13 relevant to the Assessment Year 2013-14. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS ,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

183; and Rs. 2,68,13,834 raising Ground No. 3 of A.Y. 2008-09, Ground No. 3 of A.Y. 2009-10 and Ground No. 10 of A.Y. 2011-12 respectively. At the first instance, we observe that learned Assessing office has not referred to any incriminating material found during the course of search u/s.132 of the Act to establish

THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

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

183; and Rs. 2,68,13,834 raising Ground No. 3 of A.Y. 2008-09, Ground No. 3 of A.Y. 2009-10 and Ground No. 10 of A.Y. 2011-12 respectively. At the first instance, we observe that learned Assessing office has not referred to any incriminating material found during the course of search u/s.132 of the Act to establish

THE ACIT, -2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assesse is disposed off in terms of

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

183; and Rs. 2,68,13,834 raising Ground No. 3 of A.Y. 2008-09, Ground No. 3 of A.Y. 2009-10 and Ground No. 10 of A.Y. 2011-12 respectively. At the first instance, we observe that learned Assessing office has not referred to any incriminating material found during the course of search u/s.132 of the Act to establish

THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

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

183; and Rs. 2,68,13,834 raising Ground No. 3 of A.Y. 2008-09, Ground No. 3 of A.Y. 2009-10 and Ground No. 10 of A.Y. 2011-12 respectively. At the first instance, we observe that learned Assessing office has not referred to any incriminating material found during the course of search u/s.132 of the Act to establish

JANTA CO OPERATIVE CREDIT LIMITED,CHAPORA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BURHANPUR

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshijanta Co Operative Credit Income Tax Officer, Limited, Burhanpur Dhamangaon Road, Vs. Chapora, Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaaaj8060C Assessee By Shri Nd Dave, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.10.2025 O R D E R

68 of the Act and further erred in confirming the application of provisions of section 115BBE of the Act, which is bad in in law and on facts. 7. The learned CIT (A) failed to understand that the appellant society is maintain regular books of accounts, erred in 7 confirming the unlawful and illogical rejection of books of account

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SUJALPUR MANDI vs. THE ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,97,139/- made in the business of the assessee, which has been verified from the Accounts maintained in the business of the assessee. 7. It appears from the records that upon examination of the entire set of documents as mentioned hereinabove those were duly submitted before the Ld. AO, the assessment order has been passed accepting the return filed

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SHUJALPUR MANDI vs. ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,97,139/- made in the business of the assessee, which has been verified from the Accounts maintained in the business of the assessee. 7. It appears from the records that upon examination of the entire set of documents as mentioned hereinabove those were duly submitted before the Ld. AO, the assessment order has been passed accepting the return filed

THE DCIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI DIPAK KALANI, INDORE

In the result, revenue’s appeals in IT(SS)A 104

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

68,900 51,37,800 2 On account of Diamond Jewellery 2,77,500 2,77,500 5,55,000 3 On account of excess cash 5,43,182 5,43,183 10,86,365 33,89,582 33,89,583 67,79,165 38. The Ld. Counsel submitted that correct amount of additional income was computed by the assessee

THE DCIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI PANKAJ KALANI, INDORE

In the result, revenue’s appeals in IT(SS)A 104

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

68,900 51,37,800 2 On account of Diamond Jewellery 2,77,500 2,77,500 5,55,000 3 On account of excess cash 5,43,182 5,43,183 10,86,365 33,89,582 33,89,583 67,79,165 38. The Ld. Counsel submitted that correct amount of additional income was computed by the assessee

DCIT-CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL vs. M/S SINGNATURE COLONISERS, BHOPAL

In the result, both the departmental appeals i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Abxfs 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Accfs 9498 Q … Respondent

68 of LPS-72 cannot be used against the assessee. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) relying upon the relevant judicial pronouncements discussed the legal admissibility of the ‘dumb document’ holding Signature Coloniser/Builder 11 ITA 218 and 219 of 2020 that the a dumb document cannot be used as an evidence to draw an adverse inference against the assessee. We find