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

6. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is correct and the aforesaid question is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.” 7.4 Once assessee established that the amount has been invested by partners then the responsibility of the assessee firm is over as Page 23 of 53 ITANo.344/Ind/2023 Abhushan onus

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

6(b):- Both the grounds of appeal have been raised by the appellant against the action of the AO in making an addition of Rs.1,29,60,000/- in the appellant's income by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 on account of unsecured loan claimed to have received by the appellant from

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

JASTEJ GOROWARA,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68, the CIT(Appeals) observed that the Assessing Officer had examined the issue in detail and that the assessee had failed to discharge the statutory onus of proving creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the loan transactions. In the absence of any effective rebuttal or evidence from the assessee during appellate proceedings, the CIT(Appeals) upheld the addition made

JASTEJ GOROWARA,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68, the CIT(Appeals) observed that the Assessing Officer had examined the issue in detail and that the assessee had failed to discharge the statutory onus of proving creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the loan transactions. In the absence of any effective rebuttal or evidence from the assessee during appellate proceedings, the CIT(Appeals) upheld the addition made

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

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

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

250 by CIT(Appeal)-II, Indore [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of order dated 28.07.2014 passed by DCIT (TDS), Indore [“AO”] u/s 201(1)/(1A) pursuant to the aforesaid revision-order dated 27.03.2014 passed by CIT (TDS), Bhopal u/s 263. 2. The background facts leading to these appeals are summed up as under: (i) ITA No. 415/Ind/2014

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE CIT (TDS), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

250 by CIT(Appeal)-II, Indore [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of order dated 28.07.2014 passed by DCIT (TDS), Indore [“AO”] u/s 201(1)/(1A) pursuant to the aforesaid revision-order dated 27.03.2014 passed by CIT (TDS), Bhopal u/s 263. 2. The background facts leading to these appeals are summed up as under: (i) ITA No. 415/Ind/2014

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

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/- under section 69A, reiterating that one of the bank accounts did not belong to her and that the remaining credits were duly explainable, and also objected to the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Sandhya Singh vs. ITO A.Y. 2013-14 6. During the appellate proceedings, the Commissioner (Appeals) issued

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

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

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

6 7. We find that with regard to the observation of the AO that there was no justification of the premium charged by the assessee, learned counsel for the assessee explained that the assessee had submitted that the shares were issued on the basis of the valuation done by Chartered Accountant of the FMV in accordance with Rule 11UA. Further