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 Income-Tax Act, 1961 on account of unsecured loans if the assessee establishes the identity and creditworthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transactions as entered into with them. Our view is supported by the following judicial pronouncements: CIT, Meerut v. Avant Grade Carpets Ltd. as reported in [2015] 54 taxmann.com

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 (1), INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. (M.P), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the revenue stands

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14 Dcit-2(1), M/S. Dthri Health Care Indore Vs. Pvt. Ltd (M.P), Pu-4, Scheme No.54, Near A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aabcd4095N Revenue By Shri R.P. Mourya, Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri Sumit Neema, Sr.Adv & Gagan Tiwari, Adv Date Of Hearing 17.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2019 O R D E R

68,352/- appearing in the loose paper No. B-1-13 were related to the expenses incurred in organizing the health camp. Inadvertently during the course of survey, while admitting undisclosed income the two figures representing expenditure were added to the gross receipt from health camp which were required to be reduced from the gross receipt. The actual income from

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

245 ITR 160 has held that (Refer para 3 to 6):- “3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Section 68

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘A.Y.’) 2011-12 with the following grounds: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘A.Y.’) 2011-12 with the following grounds: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘A.Y.’) 2011-12 with the following grounds: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S MAYUR INDUSTRIES, FATEPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniit(Ss)A No.212/Ind/2021 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vs. Acit, Central-2, M/S. Mayur Industries, Indore Khandwa "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abefm 4664 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri P. K. Mishra, Cit.D.R. Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Assessee By : 19.12.2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2023 O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Bhopal (M.P.) (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Order Dated 30.12.2019 Passed By The Dcit (Central)-2, Indore (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘A.Y.’) 2018-19 With The Following Ground:

section 68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and therefore, no addition is sustainable to the total income of the respondent firm on account of capital introduced by the partners. 1.5.5.1] The said documents as submitted during the course of appellate proceedings were also forwarded to the assessing officer for his comments. However, the assessing officer in his remand

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

68 of the Act. Out of this the Ld. CIT (A) deleted addition of Rs. 1,33,00,000 by treating same as genuine transaction. The assessee has borrowed fund from various parties of which confirmation, together with PAN numbers, bank statements and income-tax returns were furnished. In most of the cases, notice under section 133(6) have

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

CHANDRA SAHU,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(4), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

section 68 of the Act. Smt. Chandra Sahu ITA No.75 & 76/Ind/2019 7. That, the appellant, carves leave to add, amend, alter or otherwise raise any other ground of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from House Property and income from running a restaurant

CHANDRA SAHU,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(4), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

section 68 of the Act. Smt. Chandra Sahu ITA No.75 & 76/Ind/2019 7. That, the appellant, carves leave to add, amend, alter or otherwise raise any other ground of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from House Property and income from running a restaurant

M/S PUNYA SHREE JEWELLERS,S4EONI MALWA vs. THE PCIT-1 , BHOPAL

In the result, for the reasons mentioned above, the assessment order u/s 143(3) r

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Punya Shree Jewellers Pcit (1) Main Road, Seoni Malwa Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aapfp9682A Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.12.2023

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D. AO has simply accepted that the assessee has incorporated the excess-stock in the P&L account without examining the nature of surrender. Needless to mention that the function of assessing authority is not only of adjudicator but also of investigator

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

68. The judgements are respectfully distinguished as it has clearly been held in the preceding discussion that further enquiries are required to be made to ascertain the creditworthiness and genuineness of the companies. M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. The assessee has also submitted that the loans have been repaid through proper banking channel. The submission has no relevance

M/S LAXMINARAYAN ASSOCIATESBHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 3(2), BHOPAL

In the result, Quantum appeal is partly allowed and penalty appeal is allowed

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

68 of the Act. Accordingly, the unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 10,96,036/- was treated Page 6 of 16 ITANo.83 & 215/Ind/2023 Laxminarayan Associates as unexplained cash credit of the appellant company and penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC was initiated thereon. 5.6 xxxxx 5.7 xxxxxx 5.8 I have carefully considered the facts of the case. I am of the view that

M/S LAXMINARAYAN ASSOCIATESBHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 3(2), BHOPAL

In the result, Quantum appeal is partly allowed and penalty appeal is allowed

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

68 of the Act. Accordingly, the unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 10,96,036/- was treated Page 6 of 16 ITANo.83 & 215/Ind/2023 Laxminarayan Associates as unexplained cash credit of the appellant company and penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC was initiated thereon. 5.6 xxxxx 5.7 xxxxxx 5.8 I have carefully considered the facts of the case. I am of the view that

SHRI HAKIMUDDIN KHAMBATI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(4) RANGE-4, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

68 of the Act, whereas in the case of Smt. Manisha Agrawal, Ld. A.O. denied the benefit of Section 10(38) of the Act for Long Term Capital Gain from sale of share from Kappac Pharma Ltd and made the addition for Long Term Capital Gain claimed by the assessee. Apart from this Ld. Hakumuddin Khambati & Anr ITA No.288