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

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

section 68 does not permit any addition qua the opening balances which are carried forward from earlier year and not accepted during the year. Ld. CIT(A) has rightly taken into account the decision of (i) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Usha Stud Farms (301 ITR 384), (ii) Shri Vardhman Overseas Page

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

2) Indore [hereinafter referred to as the AO]. The Revenue has taken following grounds of appeal:- (i) On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) :- (1) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 44,68,220/- whereas the same addition was made by the AO invoking the provision of Section

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

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

M/S. BHANDARI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

68,71,414 remuneration and [ITA No.355/Ind/2017] [Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre] interest to the partners Profit after excluding other income & 2,10,72,278 49,76,658 6,32,77,054 3,36,60,134 depreciation (D)={A-B+C} Profit ratio (D/A) 28.99% 4.70% 16.84% 12.65% Consequently the profit ratio is positive and is better than the immediately preceding

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

220 (2017) 245 Тахтап 214: (2017) 77 taxmann.com 245, 22, 24 and 27 has held as under :- 22. In case of Sahara, in addition we have the adjudication by the Income Tax Settlement Commission. The order has been placed on record along with L.A. No. 4. The Settlement Commission has observed that the scrutiny of entries on loose papers, computer

M/S. S.R. FERRO ALLOYS,JHABUA vs. THE PCIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

68 of the Act. Failure of the AO to conduct necessary and proper inquiry renders the order passed by the AO as erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He has relied upon the explanation (2) to section 263(1) of the Act. He has relied upon the impugned order

SNIGDHA JAIN,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiit(Ss)A No.64 To 66/Ind/2024 (Ay: 2010-11 To 2012-13) & Smt. Snigdha Jain, Acit (Central)-2, 68, Baikundh Dham, Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aexpd1952M Assessee By Shri Arpit Gaur & Shri Vivek Garg, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2026

68, Baikundh Dham, Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AEXPD1952M Assessee by Shri Arpit Gaur & Shri Vivek Garg, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 27.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Bench: The captioned four (4) appeals have been filed by assessee against a consolidated order of first-appeal

CHIRAYU CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,BHOPAL vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradchirayu Charitable Pcit (Central), Foundation,Bhopal Indore Bhopal Highway, Bhaisakhedi, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aaaac3656P Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Advocate, Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar, Advs Date Of Hearing 05.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement .02.2021 O R D E R Per Manish Borad, Am.

220-ITR-452(MP). 2. Hon'ble M.P. High Court in this case has relied on decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v/s. CIT reported in 49-ITR-723. 3. Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v/s. Metachem Industries reported

SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN CHUORSIYA,RAJGARH vs. THE PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Krishna Mohan Pr. Cit Choursiya(Prop. Of M/S Laxmi Ujjain Mp बनाम/ Auto Parts) Vs. Ward No.14, Bus Stand, Kurawar Rajgarh(M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aempc3634G

68 of the Income Tax Act, 12,86,090 1961 5 On account of net profit being estimated at 8% 4,12,148 Total 1,18,43,978 The assessee then preferred an appeal before the Ld CIT [A], Ujjain against the assessment order as passed under section 143[3] of the Income

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

2) of the Act had already got expired and as such, no assessment proceedings were pending on the date of search. In such eventuality, the A.Y. 2016-17 cannot be considered as an abated assessment year. We also note that Ld.AO, while making the impugned additions, has also referred to some statements of Mr Mukesh Jhanwar and Mr. H.P. M/sGreat

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

2) of the Act had already got expired and as such, no assessment proceedings were pending on the date of search. In such eventuality, the A.Y. 2016-17 cannot be considered as an abated assessment year. We also note that Ld.AO, while making the impugned additions, has also referred to some statements of Mr Mukesh Jhanwar and Mr. H.P. M/sGreat

SHRI GOPAL KRISHNA SONI,MANDSAUR vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RATLAM

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2000-01 is

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

220(2) at Rs. 8,51,886/- The appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or amend any grounds of appeal.” 17. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records relating to these two appeals are that post survey u/s 133A of the Act, assessee filed income tax returns for Assessment Year 2001-02 & 2002-03. The undisclosed income surrendered

SHRI GOPAL SONI,MANDSAUR vs. ADDLL. CIT , RATLAM

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2000-01 is

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

220(2) at Rs. 8,51,886/- The appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or amend any grounds of appeal.” 17. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records relating to these two appeals are that post survey u/s 133A of the Act, assessee filed income tax returns for Assessment Year 2001-02 & 2002-03. The undisclosed income surrendered

SHRI GOPAL KRISHNA SONI,MANDSAUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME-TAX , RATLAM

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2000-01 is

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

220(2) at Rs. 8,51,886/- The appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or amend any grounds of appeal.” 17. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records relating to these two appeals are that post survey u/s 133A of the Act, assessee filed income tax returns for Assessment Year 2001-02 & 2002-03. The undisclosed income surrendered