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

M/S KOHINOOR ELASTICS P LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

24)(x) of the Act amounting to Rs.43,00,281/- based on being employees contribution to PF and ESIC as the appellant delayed to deposit the same within due dates specified in the respective Acts by invoking provisions of section without any cogent evidences and following principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Appellant prays that the said addition

THE ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD., PUNE

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit-1(1) M/S. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Indore Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Midc, Vs. Chakan, Pune, Maharastra (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcb2304E Revenue By Shri Ankit Guttani & Yash Daga, Ars Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2023

24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer’s liability is to be paid

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 may be invoked which is not the case here at all 4.19 With due respect, it is submitted that the allegation that the appellant has infused its own money in the grab of unsecured loon is without any basis and not correct and merely on the basis of conjecture or surmises. It is also undisputed fact that

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 may be invoked which is not the case here at all 4.19 With due respect, it is submitted that the allegation that the appellant has infused its own money in the grab of unsecured loon is without any basis and not correct and merely on the basis of conjecture or surmises. It is also undisputed fact that

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 may be invoked which is not the case here at all 4.19 With due respect, it is submitted that the allegation that the appellant has infused its own money in the grab of unsecured loon is without any basis and not correct and merely on the basis of conjecture or surmises. It is also undisputed fact that

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

x) Thus whoever has benefited from transaction in these shares have transacted in accordance with the scheme and has admittedly converted his unaccounted cash equal to the sale proceeds of share in to white in the guise of exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. xi) With so much of evidence against the assessee

TYHE ITO-4(5), INDORE vs. M/S. URVASHI WORLD WIDE P. LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13

2 to 13 Ruchi Stock & Securities P. Ltd AACCR5008C Rs. 467.20 Rs. 210.14 Rs.562.50 14 to 24 Ruchi Corporation Limited AADCK1337N (-)Rs.430.01 Rs.85192.68 Rs.30.00 25 to 32 Kandla Steels Pvt Ltd TOTAL Rs. 1167.50 => Inter Transfer of funds as evident from copies of accounts:- i) Opening balance due to M/s. Ruchi Corporation at Rs. 575 lacs was repaid

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

x. 203 ITR 108 CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (Bombay H.C.) y. Mukesh Sharma v. CIT 25 ITJ 341 (Indore ITAT) 22. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the order u/s 263 of the Act passed by Ld. PCIT and further submitted that assessee was required to furnish complete details of the persons named in the hundis

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

x. 203 ITR 108 CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (Bombay H.C.) y. Mukesh Sharma v. CIT 25 ITJ 341 (Indore ITAT) 22. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the order u/s 263 of the Act passed by Ld. PCIT and further submitted that assessee was required to furnish complete details of the persons named in the hundis

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

x. 203 ITR 108 CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (Bombay H.C.) y. Mukesh Sharma v. CIT 25 ITJ 341 (Indore ITAT) 22. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the order u/s 263 of the Act passed by Ld. PCIT and further submitted that assessee was required to furnish complete details of the persons named in the hundis

M/S CENTURY 21 MALLS P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

X + IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “INDORE BENCH”, INDORE ] ] BEFORE SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.166, 167 and 168 /Ind/2016 Asstt.Year : 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-11 AND Asstt.Year 2011-12 Century 21 Malls P.Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ward-2(1) 731-732, Usha Nagar Indore. Extension Above Axis

THE DCIT-2(1), INDORE vs. M/S. CENTURY 21 MALL (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

X + IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “INDORE BENCH”, INDORE ] ] BEFORE SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.166, 167 and 168 /Ind/2016 Asstt.Year : 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-11 AND Asstt.Year 2011-12 Century 21 Malls P.Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ward-2(1) 731-732, Usha Nagar Indore. Extension Above Axis

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S. CENTURE 21 MALL PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

X + IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “INDORE BENCH”, INDORE ] ] BEFORE SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.166, 167 and 168 /Ind/2016 Asstt.Year : 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-11 AND Asstt.Year 2011-12 Century 21 Malls P.Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ward-2(1) 731-732, Usha Nagar Indore. Extension Above Axis

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL vs. SH. PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA, BHOPAL

In the result the “impugned order” is sustained on the first

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit, Prakash Chandra, बनाम/ Bhopal 16/244, Kings Vs. Shopping Centre, Mp Nagar, Zone-I, Bhopal-462011 Madhya Pradesh (Pan:Aappg5194E)

section 68. As a result, ground no 2 is partly allowed. (5). In result, the appeal is partly allowed. 4. That the Revenue being aggrieved by the “Impugned order” has preferred the instant appeal before this Tribunal and has raised the following grounds of appeal in the Form No. 36 against the “Impugned order” which are as under

INCME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SWARNA SUKH, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and \"impugned order” is upheld

Section 44AA if yes, list of book so prescribed the answer given against column 11(a) is list of books of accounts cash book, ledger, bank book, journals. In 11(b) the answer given is computerized cash book, bank book, ledger, journal. Against 11(c) answer given is list of books of accounts cash, ledger, bank book, journal

NILIMA KOTHARI,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSTT. CENTRE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

x). At the time of the enactment of FA 2021, it can be safely assumed that the legislature was aware of the state of law, as it existed then, which included the provisions of Section 149, TOLA and the Notifications issued under TOLA. However, despite such a situation obtaining, no provision was made for the extension of time limits

DANISH HEALTH CARE P LTD ,UJJAIN vs. PR CIT -1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Danish Health Care Pr. Cit-1, Private Limited, Indore बनाम/ 76/27, Maxi Road, Industrial Area, Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaecd5554F Assessee By Ms.Ruchira Negi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2023

2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va). Ld. AR fairly agreed that the assessee has not deposited employees’ contribution before due dates and in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), the same is disallowable. Faced with this situation, we agree that the PCIT has rightly