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

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

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

68 clearly permits an Income-tax Officer to make enquiries with regard to the nature and source of any or all the sums credited in the books of account of the company irrespective of the nomenclature or the source indicated by the assessee. In other words, the truthfulness of the assertion of the assessee regarding the nature and the source

PRAYANK JAIN,INDORE vs. ACIT5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

206,60,987/Ind/2019 Ld. CIT(A)-II, Indore erred in not considering the facts and documents available on record in proper perspective in respect of additions made by Ld. A.O by applying provisions of Section 68

SAPAN SHAH,INDORE vs. ACIT-4(I), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

206,60,987/Ind/2019 Ld. CIT(A)-II, Indore erred in not considering the facts and documents available on record in proper perspective in respect of additions made by Ld. A.O by applying provisions of Section 68

DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

206,60,987/Ind/2019 Ld. CIT(A)-II, Indore erred in not considering the facts and documents available on record in proper perspective in respect of additions made by Ld. A.O by applying provisions of Section 68

GOVIND HARINARAYAN AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

206,60,987/Ind/2019 Ld. CIT(A)-II, Indore erred in not considering the facts and documents available on record in proper perspective in respect of additions made by Ld. A.O by applying provisions of Section 68

SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

206,60,987/Ind/2019 Ld. CIT(A)-II, Indore erred in not considering the facts and documents available on record in proper perspective in respect of additions made by Ld. A.O by applying provisions of Section 68

MANISH GOVIND AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

206,60,987/Ind/2019 Ld. CIT(A)-II, Indore erred in not considering the facts and documents available on record in proper perspective in respect of additions made by Ld. A.O by applying provisions of Section 68

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

206, CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. w. 243 ITR 83, Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT(SC) 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

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

206, CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. w. 243 ITR 83, Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT(SC) 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

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

206, CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. w. 243 ITR 83, Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT(SC) 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

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

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 2 (1), INDORE vs. M/S JILA INDUSTRIES LTD, DHAR

In the result this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R.Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanivirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit-2(1), Indore M/S. Jiji Industries Ltd., (Formerly Known As बनाम/ Krishna Profiles Pvt. Ltd.), Vs. Plot No.316, Sejwaya, Billod, Dhar (Mp) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A.N. - Aacck 1383 M Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2022

206/- on 30/03/2011. The Ld. AO completed assessment at a total income of Rs. 3,29,74,780/- after making 2 Jiji Industries Ltd. (formerly known as Krishna Profiles P. Ltd.) certain additions. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the assessee filed appeal to Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) deleted additions and allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

206 to 382 of the paper book. That, as per the Assessing Officer the complete address were not furnished and also a copy of the receipt for receiving the donation was also not furnished and therefore the learned Assessing Officer, asked the assessee to furnish the aforesaid details on 17.03.2016 otherwise the assessment shall be completed as per provision

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

206 to 382 of the paper book. That, as per the Assessing Officer the complete address were not furnished and also a copy of the receipt for receiving the donation was also not furnished and therefore the learned Assessing Officer, asked the assessee to furnish the aforesaid details on 17.03.2016 otherwise the assessment shall be completed as per provision

DY. CIT-5(1), INDORE vs. M/S. SUNIL SHARE & STOCK (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result, ground number 2 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed

206, Rajani (Appellant) Vs Bhawan, M.G. Road, Indore PAN: AAFCS5114D (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Satnam Singh Sheetal, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 10-10-2022 Date of pronouncement : 13 -12-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2005-06, arises from order

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

206 – “Even this is not the case of the Ld. CIT that certain evidences were overlooked which were very much on record or in the knowledge of the AO. Even this is not the case of Ld. CIT that certain new facts or evidences were brought to the notice of the Revenue Department which were having a direct impact