SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

68,34,975/- stating that the appellant surrendered such undisclosed income during the course of search. A.7] The appellant thereafter preferred an appeal before the Ld CIT (A)-3, Bhopal against the penalty order as passed under section 271AAB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and took the following grounds of appeal: 1] That on the facts

RITIKA JAIN,THANE vs. ITO(IT TP), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAVAN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiritika Jain, Cit (Appeals), बना A-504, Laxmi Residency Chs Nfac, म/ Ltd, Delhi Vs. Opposite Datta Mandir Check Naka, Wagle Estate, Thane

250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Page 1 of 18 Ritika Jain ITA No. 632/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2015-16 Assessment Year is 2015-16 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That the Department of Income Tax had received credible information from reliable sources that

AABHUSHAN,DHAMNOD, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO DHAR, DHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaabhushan Dhamnod Ito, Dhar 1St Floor, Ganpati Market Ab Road Dhamnod Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abgfa0812K Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & Shri S.N. Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024 O R D E R

4. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) examined the matter in detail and found that Shri S. K. Gupta was the real owner of the business. The explanation given by the assessee was found to be satisfactory and he deleted the aforesaid three entries. The same finding of fact has been affirmed by the Tribunal. Once

INCOME TAX OFFICER INDORE 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

4) Nothing contained in this rule shall affect the power of the Deputy\nCommissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) to direct the\nproduction of any document, or the examination of any witness, to enable him to dispose\nof the appeal, or for any other substantial cause including the enhancement of the\nassessment or penalty (whether

M/S OREF SECURITIES PRIVATE LTD. ,MANDSAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.70/Ind/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Vs. Ito, Mandsaur. M/S.Oref Securities P.Ltd. 69, Agrasen Nagar B/H. Mid India Mandsaur.

250 has been received during the year under consideration. Notices under section 133(6) dated 11.8.2015 were issued by the ld.AO to all seven companies who had applied for shares. Out of seven companies, six have replied in response to the said notices and confirmed their investment. While doing so, they have further filed certain documents in order

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

250(4) of the Income Tax Act,1961 for making necessary enquiry on the aforesaid issue and submit his specific report on the identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the loan creditor. Accordingly, in compliance to the directions so issued, the AO, vide his letter dated 31/07/2019, submitted his remand report incorporating his specific comments on the addition

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\ndated 21.03.2024 which has emanated from the order of the ITO, Ward 4(4), Indore\npassed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 26.12.2019.\n2.\nThe grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form 36 are as follows:\n1.\nThat addition of Rs.70,00,000/- u/s 68 on account

DCIT,CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL vs. M/S SIGNATURE BUILDERS AND COLONISER, BHOPAL

In the result, both the departmental appeals i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Abxfs 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Accfs 9498 Q … Respondent

68 of LPS-72 cannot be used against the assessee. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) relying upon the relevant judicial pronouncements discussed the legal admissibility of the ‘dumb document’ holding Signature Coloniser/Builder 11 ITA 218 and 219 of 2020 that the a dumb document cannot be used as an evidence to draw an adverse inference against the assessee. We find

DCIT-CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL vs. M/S SINGNATURE COLONISERS, BHOPAL

In the result, both the departmental appeals i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Abxfs 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Accfs 9498 Q … Respondent

68 of LPS-72 cannot be used against the assessee. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) relying upon the relevant judicial pronouncements discussed the legal admissibility of the ‘dumb document’ holding Signature Coloniser/Builder 11 ITA 218 and 219 of 2020 that the a dumb document cannot be used as an evidence to draw an adverse inference against the assessee. We find

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

250 is wrong and invalid because (a) the same has been passed without giving opportunity of being heard to the appellant regarding change of section of addition from Sec. 68 to Sec.69A and (b) the appellant had filed 14 different submissions but except only one, rest submissions and documents therein have been totally ignored.” 3. The rest

JEHAN NUMA PALACE HOTEL PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT/ACIT,5(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 is bad in law and is liable to be\nquashed.\n8.BECAUSE, the Respondent erred in considering the fact that the denial of\nthe claim of deduction u/s 80IA of Rs.1,68,90,212/- is beyond the scope of\nadjustments provided in section 143(1)(a) of the Act.\n9.BECAUSE, the Intimation order

NARENDRA KUMAR SHATILAL JAIN HUF,INDORE vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Narendra Kumar Shantilal Jain Pr. Cit -1 Huf Indore Prop. M/S Chandan Garments Khutal Mohite Complex, 2Nd Floor, 27/36, बनाम/Vs. Subhash Chowk, Rajwada Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aachn 5568 E Assessee By Shri Prakash Jain & Ms. Shreya Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2022 आदेश / / O R D E R / /

250/- and money advanced of Rs. 90,50,000/- has been incorporated as taxable income by the assessee in the ITR filed besides its regular income for the year under consideration.” We are in agreement with Ld. DR that the Ld. AO has simply stated that the assessee has incorporated the excess-cash, excess-stock and money-advanced

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

4,06,97,791 Marketing PL 15 Super Deal AAECS2143K 1,79,58,750 25,00,46,932 Sales P Ltd 16 Quicker Impex AAACQ0433E 1,07,69,250 3,27,11,907 & Credit PL 17 Satyam Credit AADCS6627H 65,39,250 99,88,429 P Ltd 18 Mudrika Fiscal AABCM7362B 1,69,42,500 15,04,12,130 Services

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

4,06,97,791 Marketing PL 15 Super Deal AAECS2143K 1,79,58,750 25,00,46,932 Sales P Ltd 16 Quicker Impex AAACQ0433E 1,07,69,250 3,27,11,907 & Credit PL 17 Satyam Credit AADCS6627H 65,39,250 99,88,429 P Ltd 18 Mudrika Fiscal AABCM7362B 1,69,42,500 15,04,12,130 Services

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

4,06,97,791 Marketing PL 15 Super Deal AAECS2143K 1,79,58,750 25,00,46,932 Sales P Ltd 16 Quicker Impex AAACQ0433E 1,07,69,250 3,27,11,907 & Credit PL 17 Satyam Credit AADCS6627H 65,39,250 99,88,429 P Ltd 18 Mudrika Fiscal AABCM7362B 1,69,42,500 15,04,12,130 Services

KHOJEMA BOHRA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

Appeals are allowed

250 of the\nAct, which is herein after referred to as the “Impugned\norder\". The Relevant Assessment year is 2014-15 and the\nPage 1 of 13\nKhojema Bohra\nITA No. 812 & 814/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2014-15 & 2013-14\ncorresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2013 to\n31.03.2014.\n2.\nFactual Matrix\n2.1 That as and by way of an Assessment order bearing\nnumber

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

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

250 (6) of the Act, 1961, dated 30.11.2023 for A.Y. 2014-15 which has\nemanated from the order of the AO Ward-1(2), Indore dated 13.12.2019 passed u/s\n143(3)/263 of the Act 1961 (hence forth referred to as the Act ).\n2.\nThe grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as follows

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