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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

189/- in the earlier year to Rs.58,38,100/- during the year under consideration. The appellant submitted that during the year under consideration, the contract receipt has been increased from Rs.19,15,31,078/- to Rs.23,55,53,052/- i.e. by Rs.4,40,21,344/-. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings has not pointed out any defect

BARKHA KHANDELWAL,AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1),INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Barkha Khandelwal Ito -3(1) Aggrieved Assesse Indore 1108, Pinnacle D Dreams, Tower -1 Vs. Near Bhawan Prominent School Pipliyakumar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ajnpk4150B Assessee By Shri Rakesh Gupta, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20 .09.2024

68, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. Page 3 of 13 ITANo.85/Ind/2024 Barkha Khandelwal 13. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action

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

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

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

189 (Jaipur - Trib.) Dilip Kumar Roy v. ITO, Ward-1, Nadia - [2016] 68 taxmann.com 129 (Kolkata - Trib.) Sanjay Lunawat ITA No.396/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.32/Ind/2018 New Alignment v. ITO, Ward-51(4), Kolkata - [2016] 69 taxmann.com 122 (Kolkata - Trib.) Punjab Goods Transport (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, Ward-12(3), Kolkata - [2017] 77 taxmann.com 37 (Kolkata - Trib.) Brijgopal Madhusudan Bhattad v. ITO, Khamgaon

DCIT,CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI KRIHNA KUMAR VERMA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI (Accountant Member)

3. The Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (“Sr. DR” for short) supporting the action of the Assessing Officer (“AO” for short) on the issue of chargeability of tax u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not justified in law allowing

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

section 68 is very much illegal. Ld. DR for assessee has though relied upon statements of Shri Anand Sharma and the observations made by AO in various paras of assessment-order (as narrated by us in foregoing paras of this order) but, however, could not controvert these vital points as noted by us. Page 27 of 44 M/s Decent

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

189/-) was disallowed. Ld. A.O also observed that there were huge cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee during the month of February and March. Assessee claimed that the surrendered income of Rs.7 crores which was invested in the form of hundi matured during the year and the money so received (Principal and Interest) was deposited

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

189/-) was disallowed. Ld. A.O also observed that there were huge cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee during the month of February and March. Assessee claimed that the surrendered income of Rs.7 crores which was invested in the form of hundi matured during the year and the money so received (Principal and Interest) was deposited

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

189/-) was disallowed. Ld. A.O also observed that there were huge cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee during the month of February and March. Assessee claimed that the surrendered income of Rs.7 crores which was invested in the form of hundi matured during the year and the money so received (Principal and Interest) was deposited

SATYANARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14

189 Taxman 436 – order pronounced on 11.09.2009 – HEAD NOTE – “Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of order prejudicial to interest of revenue - Assessment year 2001- Satyanarayan Sharma /ITANo.426/Ind/2018 02 - Whether if while making assessment, Assessing Officer has made an inadequate enquiry , that would not, by itself, give occasion to Commissioner to pass order under section

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

Section 115BBE in respect of additions made in A.Y. 2017-18 and A.Y. 2018-19 5. Since the common issues are involved in various assessment years, it would be appropriate to adjudicate the various grounds taken by the assessee and the revenue in their cross-appeals for the subject assessment years, through this common Order. We will first take

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

Section 115BBE in respect of additions made in A.Y. 2017-18 and A.Y. 2018-19 5. Since the common issues are involved in various assessment years, it would be appropriate to adjudicate the various grounds taken by the assessee and the revenue in their cross-appeals for the subject assessment years, through this common Order. We will first take

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

189 ITR 769, 772 (All); Keshrimal Bapulal v. CIT, (2001) 252 ITR 764, 769 (MP); Shy am Sundar Agrawal v. State of Assam, (2003) 131 ITR 70, 72-73hl following Rajendra Singh v. Superitendent of taxes, (1990) 79 STC 10,17 3 (Gauh).Also, see Nazarbad Plantations v. State ofKarnataka, (1984) 150 ITR 499 (Karn.). With reference to Para

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

3 Other 61,68,189 61,51,850 16,339 No reason assigned Assets (Furniture & Fixtures Plant & Machineries and Computers) Total 1,55,95,905 74,63,469 81,32,436 2.00 As regard to the short-allowance of depreciation on building, it is submitted as under: i) First of all, the appellant claims that its entire building was used

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3 (1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. ENTERTAINMENT AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

3 Other 61,68,189 61,51,850 16,339 No reason assigned Assets (Furniture & Fixtures Plant & Machineries and Computers) Total 1,55,95,905 74,63,469 81,32,436 2.00 As regard to the short-allowance of depreciation on building, it is submitted as under: i) First of all, the appellant claims that its entire building was used

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

3 Other 61,68,189 61,51,850 16,339 No reason assigned Assets (Furniture & Fixtures Plant & Machineries and Computers) Total 1,55,95,905 74,63,469 81,32,436 2.00 As regard to the short-allowance of depreciation on building, it is submitted as under: i) First of all, the appellant claims that its entire building was used

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

3 Other 61,68,189 61,51,850 16,339 No reason assigned Assets (Furniture & Fixtures Plant & Machineries and Computers) Total 1,55,95,905 74,63,469 81,32,436 2.00 As regard to the short-allowance of depreciation on building, it is submitted as under: i) First of all, the appellant claims that its entire building was used