THE ITO-3(3), INDORE vs. M/S. MUNGAD STRIPS & ALLOYS PVT. LTD., INDORE

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

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

68,220/- whereas the same addition was made by the AO invoking the provision of Section 145(3) of the IT Act and estimated

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

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

220/- and assessed the business loss at Rs.39,38,283/- and unabsorbed depreciation at Rs.1,53,066/- to be carry forward for set up in subsequent years. 3. After passing of the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, Ld. Pr. CIT examined the assessment records and documents filed by the assessee and notice that the M/s. Radheshwari Developers

M/S. VPA CIVILCON (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & T.R. Senthil Kumar

220/-. The case was selected for compulsory limited scrutiny assessment under CASS and notice under section 143(2) was issued on various dates. After considering written submissions of the assessee, the AO accepted the returned income, and assessed the same as total income of the assessee. This assessment order was taken for revision under section

ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE vs. SHRI AAKASH SHUKLA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit(Central)-1 Shri Aakash Shukla Indore 94, Banganga Main Road Vs. Indore

section 68 of the Act. It has been found that all loans had been received by the appellant from the companies under consideration through proper banking channel and the appellant has paid interest thereon after deducting TDS. Repayment of loans have been done and interest thereon has been paid and due TDS has also been made. The appellant

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

section 153A of the Act. Hon'ble Delhi High / Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) has considered various High Court decisions relied upon by the learned DR. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has considered the cases of Canara Housing Development Co. vs. DCfT; Madugula vs. DCIT; CIT vs. Chetandas Laxmandas and CIT vs. Anil

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

section 153A of the Act. Hon'ble Delhi High / Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) has considered various High Court decisions relied upon by the learned DR. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has considered the cases of Canara Housing Development Co. vs. DCfT; Madugula vs. DCIT; CIT vs. Chetandas Laxmandas and CIT vs. Anil

RADHESHYAM KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ACIT4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 of the Act to be taxed @ 30% under section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the hands of the assessee. Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 6. In the first appeal, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the AO by observing that the documents submitted as evidence

SMT. SANDHYA KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 of the Act to be taxed @ 30% under section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the hands of the assessee. Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 6. In the first appeal, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the AO by observing that the documents submitted as evidence

SHRI SURESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 of the Act to be taxed @ 30% under section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the hands of the assessee. Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 6. In the first appeal, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the AO by observing that the documents submitted as evidence

SMT. RUKMANI KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 of the Act to be taxed @ 30% under section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the hands of the assessee. Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 6. In the first appeal, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the AO by observing that the documents submitted as evidence

MOHANLAL KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 of the Act to be taxed @ 30% under section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the hands of the assessee. Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 6. In the first appeal, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the AO by observing that the documents submitted as evidence

LATE MANOHARASINGH THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI SURAJ MANDLOI,INDORE vs. ITO 1(1), INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2017-18 Late Manoharasingh Income-Tax Officer, (Through Legal Heir Shri 1(1), Suraj Mandloi), Indore. बनाम/ 34, Village Begam Kheri, Vs. P.O.Burana Kheri, Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan : Blspm9380B Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2024

220/-. Having regard to same, we accept this source explained by assessee. 13. Thus, we accept that the assessee can be said to have a cash balance of Rs. 2,43,400 (+) Rs. 4,36,920 (+) Rs. 1,82,100 = 8,62,420/- from explainable sources. During arguments, Ld. AR standing at the Bar in the present

SHRI NILESH JAIN HUF,INDORE vs. ITO 4(2), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

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

Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de-mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels.” The above noted factors

PRITESH JAIN HUF,INDORE vs. ITO 4 (2), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

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

Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de-mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels.” The above noted factors

INCOME TAX OFFICER 5 (1), INDORE vs. M/S SATYAMITRA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the departmental appeal i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2012-13

section 68 of the I.T. Act becuase the amount of loan was received from the directors of the assessee. The Assessing Officer failed to call the bank statements from the loan creditors and merely added the amount of loan to the total income of the assessee. We find taht the Assessing Officer himself noted that in case of loan