DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE vs. PUNJAB RETAIL (P) LTD., INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

5 87 90 884 Cl. Stock as on 28.09.2016 as per Books of A/C 81 8590486 1 032539221 Physical Stock as per DVO Reports 1 06 03 64 1 060364733 733 Excess Stock -241774247 -27825512 DCIT vs.M/s. Punajb Retail Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2017-18 - 9 – Less: Stock Surrendered Short/ Excess Surrendered 10 1495 122 - 101495122 140279125 73669610 Thus, in view

ACIT 5 (1), BHOPAL vs. M/S VINDHYA SOLVENT PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

5 October 2016 enclosing a copy of the AoA is enclosed at Paper Book, Page ,No, 56 to 58. Share premium is excess of issue price over nominal value and not realization of future profits 1.12. The learned AO has alleged that share premium is a consideration against realization of future profits and hence the valuation of shares

THE ITO 2 (1) INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S HI LINK CITY HOMES P LTD,, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, 2(1) M/S. Hi Link City Homes Indore Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 06, Sadhna Nagar, Vs. Airport Road, Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aacch5920K Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani & Shri Pankaj Shah, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2022

68 and the Ld. CIT(A) was Page 5 of 14 M/s Hi Link City Homes P. Ltd. Assessment year 2012-13 justified in deleting the addition made by Ld. AO. We, therefore, uphold the action of Ld. CIT(A). With, this Ground No. 2 and 3 of the revenue are dismissed. Ground No. 4: 10. During assessment-proceeding

INCOME TAX OFFICER INDORE 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

21,564/- brought forward from\nearlier year is outside the scope of section 68 meaning thereby no addition\ncan be made in current year for such opening balance. Once the liability of\nopening balance is excluded, there remains a small liability of Rs.\n18,12,333/- for which the CIT(A) is again correct in observing that the\nassessee

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

21,070 10/- 990/- 22,10,70,000/ Ltd - (AAGCA4914J) 2 M/s Jai Hind 4,48,100 10/- 990/- 44,81,00,000/ Financial Advisors P - Ltd (AABCJ9501B) Total 66,91,70,000/ - The report of Investigation Wing was based on a survey action u/s 133A carried out in the case of one ‘Shri Anand Sharma, Kolkata’ (entry operator

INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

21,564/- brought forward from\nearlier year is outside the scope of section 68 meaning thereby no addition\ncan be made in current year for such opening balance. Once the liability of\nopening balance is excluded, there remains a small liability of Rs.\n18,12,333/- for which the CIT(A) is again correct in observing that the\nassessee

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

68.". 4.12 Similarly in the case of Balbir Chand Maini Vs CIT [2011] 12 taxrnann.com 276 (Punjab & Haryana} / [2011] 201 Taxman 94 (Punjab & Haryana) (MAG.) /[2012] 340 ITR 161 (Punjab & Haryana) / [2012] 247 CTR 468 (Punjab & Haryana), Hon'ble Court held:- "Section 69 of the Income-Tax Act,1961-Unexplained investments. AY.1998-99. During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officers found that

THE I.T.O. 2 (1), INDORE vs. M/S HI LINK BUILDCON P LTD , INDORE

In the result, this appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, 2(1) M/S. Hi Link Buildcon Pvt. Indore Ltd. बनाम/ 06, Sadhna Nagar, Vs. Airport Road, Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aacch7180H Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani & Shri Pankaj Shah, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2022

section 68 to arrive at a proper conclusion in the matter. Having observed so, we now turn back to the assessment-order and reproduce below, which we have earlier too repeated, the submission made by assessee to Ld. AO: “7. With reference to your query regarding Shri Nilesh Jain, it is submitted that we have already given

AABHUSHAN,DHAMNOD, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO DHAR, DHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaabhushan Dhamnod Ito, Dhar 1St Floor, Ganpati Market Ab Road Dhamnod Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abgfa0812K Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & Shri S.N. Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024 O R D E R

section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, we of the considered opinion that there was no justification for making addition to the total income of the assessee on account of capital introduced by its partners since the assessee duly justified the identity and creditworthiness of the partners as well as genuineness of the transactions as entered into with them

BHAGWAN SINGH GOUR RUNNING AASHIRWAD FUEL POINT,VILLAGE NEEMKHEDI POST RUNAHA vs. ITO- 4 (3) CV R JAYA KUMAR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF ITO

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

5. Respectfully following the decision of ITAT Pune Bench in the case of M/s.Bhagur Urban Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., in ITA No.561/PUN/2022, it is held that addition made by AO under section 68 are not maintainable. Accordingly, AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs.1,21

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 of the Act, and also (ii) Ld. AO added a sum of Rs. 1,99,847/- on account of estimated brokerage-cost incurred by assessee out of undisclosed sources for arranging bogus capital gain. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the assesse filed Page 3 of 21 Shri Rupesh Vyas Assessment year 2014-15 appeal

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

5 amounts of Rs.575 lacs were in the nature of inter-transfer of funds between three companies. Burden cast upon the assessee : The company proved the source from copies of accounts as well bank statements of such companies & audited accounts of all three companies. It is a settled position of law that prior to AY 2013-14 the assessee

AVIRAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

5,23,95,000/- iii. Jitendra Kumar Agnihotri Rs.5,00,000/- iv. Samt. Kavita Agarwal Rs.5,00,000/- v. Success Vyapar Ltd. Rs.17,12,000/- vi. Vasundhara Capital & Securities ltd. Rs.71,22,975/- Total Rs.8,52,09,975/- Aviral Industries 20. To examine the issue raised in the grounds we will first like the provisions of section 68

THE ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. M/S. SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by the Revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13

section 68 of the I.T. 21 Sunderdeep Construction Pvt. Ltd Act does not come into play. No material was brought by the Ld. A.O to prove that the money was the assessee’s own undisclosed income” (emphasis supplied). 16. As regards the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd (supra) relied

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

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

section 68 of the Act by stating that only copy of ledger was filed without PAN. The appellant during 19 Sanjay Lunawat ITA No.396/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.32/Ind/2018 the course of appellate proceeding filed copy of account of the appellant in the book of M/s Jain Infratech and contra account of M/s Jain Infratech in the book of the appellant, copy

ACIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. SANJAY LADDHA, INDORE

21,80,200/- is being\ndone by invoking section 68 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act by treating the cash as\nunexplained money of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC is\nbeing initiated separately on this issue.\n5.\nDuring first-appeal, the assessee made a detailed submission to CIT(A).\nThe assessee also filed additional evidences in terms of Rule

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

section 68 of the Act, which the Revenue has taken in the following manner: Century 21 Malls P.Ltd Vs. ACIT (Indore Bench) – (9 Cross-Appeals) 24 “2. Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5

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

section 68 of the Act, which the Revenue has taken in the following manner: Century 21 Malls P.Ltd Vs. ACIT (Indore Bench) – (9 Cross-Appeals) 24 “2. Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5