PIYUSH JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(4), INDORE , ITO, INDORE

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

section 68\nhas no application when cash is received on account of sales consideration. He\nfurther states that since trading results have been accepted then purchases and sales\ncannot be added u/s 68 as held in the case of CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain [2006]\nreported 250

JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 250(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and therefore the directions of the Ld. CIT(A) were incomplete? Page 4 of 83 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia IT(SS)A Nos. 19 to 27/Ind/2023 & ITA No. 226 & 228/Ind/2023- AY 2013-14 to 2018-19 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE vs. JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 250(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and therefore the directions of the Ld. CIT(A) were incomplete? Page 4 of 83 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia IT(SS)A Nos. 19 to 27/Ind/2023 & ITA No. 226 & 228/Ind/2023- AY 2013-14 to 2018-19 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ITO 1(3), AYKAR BHAWAN ANNEX, INDORE vs. M/S. FAIRDEAL ENGINEERING & BODY BUILDING CO. (P) LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. 9.1 I have gone through the assessment order, the written submissions filed by the appellant, the documentary evidences placed on record, the remand reports of the AO on the issue and the counter comments filed by the appellant. It has been found that the addition has been made

UJJAIN NAGRIK SAHKARI PEDI MARYADIT UJJAIN,UJJAIN vs. ITO 1(2) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniujjain Nagrik Sahkari Pedi Ito 1(2) Maryadit Ujjain Ujjain Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaaau0360J Assessee By Shri Sharad Jain, Ar Shri Sanjeev H. Bhagat, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2024 O R D E R

68 to Section 69A has been made by the Ld. CIT(A) is without jurisdiction and without providing any opportunity of being heard to the appellant. GROUND NO. 03: That further the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) U/s. 250

KUSUM YADAV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

section 68, whether SLP\nwas to be dismissed against impugned order of High Court, the\nmatter was decided in favour of the Revenue, wherein the Supreme\nCourt dismissed the SLP filed by the appellant.\n14.\nAdmittedly in the instant case, the appellant has identified the\nsource of the amount even assuming that the averment is genuine\nand correct without

SANDHYA SINGH,ROHIT NAGAR, BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(3) BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,600/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Act, as the said addition is illegal and arbitrary. The addition Sandhya Singh vs. ITO A.Y. 2013-14 was made without proper verification or credible evidence to substantiate the alleged undisclosed income. The Assessing Officer failed to consider the explanations

ACIT CENTTRAL -2 INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KALYAN TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, INDORE

Accordingly ground no. 2 of the cross objection stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit Central-2, M/S Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Indore Ltd., Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aacck1840M

250 crores and net profit above 20 crores and has shown substantial growth in its revenue and profitability in subsequent years. Its net worth as on 31.03.2013 is 290 crores and the book value itself works out to more than 65 per share without factoring in the intrinsic value of its assets and properties, its intangible assets in the form

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act on account of share application money received from M/s SKS Ispat and Power Limited. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 20. Before us, the Ld. CIt-DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. AO. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the findings

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act on account of share application money received from M/s SKS Ispat and Power Limited. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 20. Before us, the Ld. CIt-DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. AO. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the findings

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act on account of share application money received from M/s SKS Ispat and Power Limited. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 20. Before us, the Ld. CIt-DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. AO. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the findings

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

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

SMT. MAMTA SINGH,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14 Smt. Mamta Singh Vs Acit-3(1) Ef-14, Scheme No.54, Indore Vijay Nagar, Indore

68,97,250/- stating that the alleged gain is exempt from tax as the agriculture land in question do not fall in the category of capital assets as provided in section

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 Act. Ld. Assessing Officer completed the assessment after making addition for the alleged bogus share premium/share capital u/s 68 of the Act at Rs. 3,47,01,225/- and assessed the income at Rs.4,28,05,387/-. The addition of bogus share premium/share capital u/s 68 of the Act was made towards the following amount

SARITA BAGDI ,INDORE vs. THE ITO WARD-4(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2011-12

68 - On appeal, Tribunal deleted addition observing that DMAT account and contract note showed credit/details of share transactions; - Whether on facts, transactions in shares were rightly held to be genuine and addition made by Assessing Officer was rightly deleted - Held, yes From the above cited decisions in the favor of the assessee, it is clear that the assesee has entered

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

250/- as given in section 115BBC(1)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the balance anonymous donations amounting to Rs. 20,50,90,750/- are charged to tax at the rate of thirty per cent as per provisions of section 115BBC of the Act. I am also satisfied that the assessee has committed default within the meaning