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

68 to uphold the addition made by AO. The said proviso prescribes thus: “Provided that where the assessee is a company (not being a company in which the public are substantially interested), and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee

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

Section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, the same may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing

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

214 ITR 801 (SC) while making the addition u/s 68. However, the above decision will not be applicable to the instant case of the appellant because in case of Sumati Dayal, the H'ble Court had held that \"The transaction about purchase of winning ticket took place in secret and direct evidence about such purchase would be rarely available

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

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

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ ./ ./ I.T.A. No.277 & Co.16/Ind/2014 ./ "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09

214 Taxman 423(Del). In this case it was noted by the Hon`ble judges that AO sat with folded hands till the appellant exhausted all the evidence or material in his possession and then forward to merely reject the same on the presumptions. In such an eventuality, no addition can be made u/s. 68

DHANWAN LEASING AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2 (2), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2010-11

section 68 of the Act. The ld.CIT-DR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has dealt with the issue elaborately in paras 4.2 to 4.2.5 which are unambiguous and clear, therefore, in view of the judicial pronouncements relied on by the ld.CIT(A), the addition made by the AO may kindly be confirmed. 7. Placing rejoinder to the above

THE DY. CIT 4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. VIJAYSHRI PACKAGING LTD. , INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vijayshri Packaging Dcit-4(1), Vs. Limited, 34-C/2, Industrial Estate Laxmi Indore Bai Nagar, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aabcv0048B C.O.No.11/Ind/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vijayshri Packaging Vs. Dcit-4(1), Limited, 34-C/2, Industrial Estate Indore Laxmi Bai Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No. Aabcv0048B Revenue By Shri Lal Chand, Cit Appellant By S/Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Ranjan Agrawal, Cas Date Of Hearing 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2021 O R D E R

Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961 which states that the explanation of the creditor, especially regarding her creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transactions, need to be, "in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory", which it wasn't found to be in this case. 4. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) ignored landmark 'decisions of the Apex Court such

SHRI SUKHRAM MUKATI,INDORE vs. THE ITO WD-3(3), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of Shri Sukhram Mukati and

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.409&410/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09

68 read with section 69A without verifying the facts of the case. The addition so made being illegal and wrong, the same required to be deleted. 3. That the learned CIT (A) erred in making addition of Rs. 27, 66,000 under section 69 without pinpointing any unexplained deposit. The addition so made being illegal and wrong

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

214 (Pune-Trib.) has categorically held that where assessee-trust though provided names and addresses of donors, but during enquiry most of them denied having given any donation to trust, such donations received by assessee were rightly brought to tax as 'anonymous donations' within meaning of section 115BBC. The relevant excerpt of the judgment is reproduced as under

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

214 (Pune-Trib.) has categorically held that where assessee-trust though provided names and addresses of donors, but during enquiry most of them denied having given any donation to trust, such donations received by assessee were rightly brought to tax as 'anonymous donations' within meaning of section 115BBC. The relevant excerpt of the judgment is reproduced as under

M/S SHRI GURMUKHDAS CONTRACTORS P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-CENRRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in I

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 of the I.T. Act is not understandable. Thus, the Approving Authority without application of mind and in a most mechanical and technical manner granted approval under section 153D even without reference to any reason in the Order under section 153D of the I.T. Act. We, even, otherwise failed to understand that in search cases how an approval

SHRI ABHISHEK GUPTA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), 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. 1,29,162/- 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 appeal to Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, dismissed appeal and did not grant

SHIVKRIPA DEVCON P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13

214 ITR 801 (SC) (b) Hersh Win Chadha Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 3088 to 3098 & 3107/Del/2005 (c) Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 1995 AIR 2009 (SC) (d) McDowell & Co. Ltd. Vs. CTO 1986 AIR 649 (SC) (e) Sanjay Bimal Chand Jain Vs. PCIT, Nagpur (Bombay HC) (f) M.K. Rajeshwari Vs. ITO, Ward-3, Raichur (ITAT, Bangalore) Then, the Ld. AR carried

SHRI MANJEET SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT RANGE-3, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Manjeet Singh Bhatia Addl. Cit, Range-3 8/5, Bcc House Indore बनाम/ Manoramaganj Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Agjpb 0022 G Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijayvargiya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023

section 68. The main grounds taken by AO are : (i) Huge share capital and premium were received by those 3 companies; (ii) The companies are Kolkata-based and in recent years, the field officers of Income-tax Department have come across cases where companies registered in Kolkata, Mumbai and Surat are providing Page 2 of 10 Manjeet Singh Bhatia

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

68 of the Act by both the lower authorities. As the issues raised are common these three appeals were heard together and being disposed off by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 4. For the purpose of adjudication we will take up the facts of Smt. Annapurna Maheshwari for Assessment Year 2008-09 relating to I.T.A. No.315/Ind/2012

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

68 of the Act by both the lower authorities. As the issues raised are common these three appeals were heard together and being disposed off by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 4. For the purpose of adjudication we will take up the facts of Smt. Annapurna Maheshwari for Assessment Year 2008-09 relating to I.T.A. No.315/Ind/2012

SHRI PRADEEP MAHESHWARI HUF,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

68 of the Act by both the lower authorities. As the issues raised are common these three appeals were heard together and being disposed off by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 4. For the purpose of adjudication we will take up the facts of Smt. Annapurna Maheshwari for Assessment Year 2008-09 relating to I.T.A. No.315/Ind/2012

PARMANAND SACHDEV,INDORE vs. ITO 5(5), 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. 1,39,568/- 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 appeal to Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, dismissed appeal and did not grant

GLOBUS HOUSING,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number CIT(A)-3, Bhopal/IT-NFAC/2013- 14/10128987 dated 25.10.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Page