NILESH JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2011-12 Nilesh Jain, Ito 1(1) 1, Gandhi Chowk, Indore बनाम/ Chandrawati Ganj Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ajxpj3919M Assessee By Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

198 TTJ (Asr) 114 3.6) In view of the above it is submitted that the addition as made by the Ld. A.O. to the Total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act by considering the bank passbook/bank statement as books of accounts is wrong. The addition so made of Rs. 6,57,923/- u/s 68

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

68 of the Act, hence, we delete the same and allow the appeal of the assessee accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Page 24 of 116 ITANo.794/Ind/2018 & IT(SS)A No.14 & 07/Ind/2022 Ritesh Jain & M.P. Agro Nutri Food Ltd. 6.3. Similar view have been taken by ITAT, SMC Bench in the case of Shri

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

ASIAN BUSINESS CONECTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT - 1(1) , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2015-16 M/S. Asian Business Dcit-1(1), Connections Private Ltd, Vs. Bhopal Fm-18, Man Sarovar Complex, 7No. Stop, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaica1206D

68,364/- under section 2(22) (e) of the Act without understanding the fact of the case and without appreciating that the amount payable to M/s Advantage overseas Pvt Ltd was taken for strategic investment purpose same was evident from agreement dated 12/10/2012 executed between both holding and its subsidiary company. 5. That CIT (A) erred in not proper

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. M.C.S. TRADING COM. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result the appeals of the revenue for Assessment Year

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

68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. 4. a. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in not deciding the issue on merits with respect to the ad-hoc addition of Rs.2,66,835/- made by the AO in the respondent's income

M/S. ICONIC BITUMINOUS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ITO-2(4), INDORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the submission of the assessee company. 3. That the assessee company craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or delete any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. Briefly stated that as culled out from the records are that the assessee

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. SMT. NAMITA PATWA, DEWAS

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

section 68 without examining the creditworthiness and genuineness of the said transaction. 3. Following grounds have been taken by the assessee in the cross objection for the assessment year 2008-09 :- “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in maintaining the addition of Rs.6,96,500/- in respect of commission paid to various parties

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. SMT. NAMITA PATWA, DEWAS

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

section 68 without examining the creditworthiness and genuineness of the said transaction. 3. Following grounds have been taken by the assessee in the cross objection for the assessment year 2008-09 :- “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in maintaining the addition of Rs.6,96,500/- in respect of commission paid to various parties

M/S. S.R. FERRO ALLOYS,JHABUA vs. THE PCIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

68 of the Act. Failure of the AO to conduct necessary and proper inquiry renders the order passed by the AO as erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He has relied upon the explanation (2) to section 263(1) of the Act. He has relied upon the impugned order

ANDRITZ HYDRO P LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing

68 days. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is due to country-wide lockdowns imposed by the government in wake of Covid-19 outbreak and taking cognizance of the same the government had introduced the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020 in order to relax/extend the statutory

THE ACIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI YOGESH KUMAR HOTWANI, MANDSAUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Section 153A, it was found that the assessee has offered Rs. 77,93,500/- as additional income in his return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 to 2012-13 as against undisclosed income of Rs. 3 crores admitted by Shri Shiv Kumar Hotwani on behalf of the assessee. It was explained to the AO vide letter dated

SHRI YOGESH HOTWANI,MANDSAUR vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Section 153A, it was found that the assessee has offered Rs. 77,93,500/- as additional income in his return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 to 2012-13 as against undisclosed income of Rs. 3 crores admitted by Shri Shiv Kumar Hotwani on behalf of the assessee. It was explained to the AO vide letter dated

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. KETI CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) LTD., INDORE

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Keti Construction (India) Central-2, बनाम/ Limited, Indore Indore. Vs. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aabck 5930 D Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Ajay Tulsian, Ca Date Of Hearing 09.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023

68 treating the share application moneys received by assessee as unexplained cash credit. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first appeal and Page 2 of 13 ACIT Central 2, Indore. Vs. M/s. Keti Construction (India) Limited, Indore. ITA No.63/Ind/2021- AY 2009-10 succeeded. Now, the Revenue has come in this appeal before us assailing the order of first appellate authority

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. MODERN LABORATORIES, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 135/Ind/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09 Dy. Cit, Vs. M/S.Modern Laboratories 3(1), Pvt.Ltd., Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. -: 3 :- Modern Laboratories P.Ltd., Indore. (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by deleting the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 11,19,895/- whereas the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed

M/S MODERN LABORATARIES PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 135/Ind/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09 Dy. Cit, Vs. M/S.Modern Laboratories 3(1), Pvt.Ltd., Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. -: 3 :- Modern Laboratories P.Ltd., Indore. (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by deleting the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 11,19,895/- whereas the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed

ACIT CENTRAL -2, BHOPAL vs. SHRI NARESH THARANI , BHOPAL

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed and COs of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No.108/Ind/2021 & Acit Central-2 Shri Naresh Tharani Bhopal E-2/149, Arera Colony Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aampt6514G

198) Bank statement (PB AmitTharani 10,00,000 PAN Confirmation letter Loan raised and repaid ACBPT1991J 207)ITR(PB 200-203) through Banking channel. (PB 199) Bank statement of assessee on PB 208 PB209-210 Ledger (PB 204- 206) ChiragThara 12,00,000 PAN: Loan Confirmation Bank statement(PB Loan raised and repaid ni BSXPT1292D Letter