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

Appeals are dismissed

251 or the imposition of penalty\nunder section 271.\"\nAdditional evidences are normally not allowed so as to bring finality to\nassessment proceedings. However, this cannot be at the cost of natural\njustice. Therefore, Rule 46A(1)(b) & 46A(1)(c) give opportunity to appellant to\nproduce additional evidences in cases where an appellant is prevented by\nsufficient cause

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

Appeals are dismissed

251 or the imposition of penalty\nunder section 271.\"\nAdditional evidences are normally not allowed so as to bring finality to\nassessment proceedings. However, this cannot be at the cost of natural\njustice. Therefore, Rule 46A(1)(b) & 46A(1)(c) give opportunity to appellant to\nproduce additional evidences in cases where an appellant is prevented by\nsufficient cause

DECENT INDUSTRIES P. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Decent Industries Ito-1(2), Private Ltd, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Corporate Park, बनाम/ Db City Area Hills, Vs. Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeca6271G Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta & Shri N.K. Gupta Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

section 68 of the Act, viz. identity of “A” & “J”, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of “A” & “J”, have been duly established by furnishing a large number of statutory and non-statutory documents. In Para 5.2 of appeal-order, the CIT(A) has already accepted the satisfaction of first two ingredients i.e. the identity of “A” & “J” and genuineness

SUNIL,INDORE vs. ITO 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

sections": [ "147", "144", "144B", "68", "271AAC", "272A(1)(d)", "148", "142(1)", "251(1)(a)" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment

SHRI SUKHRAM MUKATI,INDORE vs. THE ITO WD-3(3), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of Shri Sukhram Mukati and

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.409&410/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09

68 read with section 69A without verifying the facts of the case. The addition so made being illegal and wrong, the same required to be deleted. 3. That the learned CIT (A) erred in making addition of Rs. 27, 66,000 under section 69 without pinpointing any unexplained deposit. The addition so made being illegal and wrong

SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), INDORE

In the result, both the appeal of assessee in ITANo

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

68 as per his predessor's order in Appeal nO.IT /783/11-12 dated 28.02.2014, against which the Appellant's appeal bearing No. ITA/379/IND/2014 is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 8.On the Facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) Shri Rajyavardhan Singh erred in not making a speaking order in view of his ignoring the revelation made

SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), INDORE

In the result, both the appeal of assessee in ITANo

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

68 as per his predessor's order in Appeal nO.IT /783/11-12 dated 28.02.2014, against which the Appellant's appeal bearing No. ITA/379/IND/2014 is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 8.On the Facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) Shri Rajyavardhan Singh erred in not making a speaking order in view of his ignoring the revelation made

JAYA GARG,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Ms.Jaya Garg, Income-Tax Officer, C-4-C-5, Shvkripa Colony, Nfac, बनाम/ Indore New Delhi Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Agtpg4247L Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Shri Soumya Bumb, Ars Revenue By Shri K. Bala Murali Krishna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

section 68 i.e. the identity and creditworthiness of “J” and genuineness of loan transaction. (ii) The ITAT, Indore has already deleted additions made by AO based on statements of Shri Sharad Dark, in the hands of various other assessees in respect of loans taken from very same creditor “J”. Two such decisions are M/s Global Realcon

DCIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL, MHOW

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

section 145 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2c). That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in making the impugned enhancement of Rs.11,96,353/- in the appellant’s income by estimating the net profit of the appellant at 15% and estimating the turnover at Rs.16,00,00,000/- merely on guess work, surmises and conjectures, without giving

DCIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL, MHOW

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

section 145 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2c). That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in making the impugned enhancement of Rs.11,96,353/- in the appellant’s income by estimating the net profit of the appellant at 15% and estimating the turnover at Rs.16,00,00,000/- merely on guess work, surmises and conjectures, without giving

DCIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL, MHOW

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

section 145 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2c). That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in making the impugned enhancement of Rs.11,96,353/- in the appellant’s income by estimating the net profit of the appellant at 15% and estimating the turnover at Rs.16,00,00,000/- merely on guess work, surmises and conjectures, without giving

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

68 of 107\nKriti Nutrients Ltd.\nITA No. 780/Ind/2024\nA.Y. 2021-22\nPage 69 of 107\nKriti Nutrients Ltd.\nITA No. 780/Ind/2024\nA.Y. 2021-22\nPage 70 of 107\nAssessing Officer the Remand report. The Impugned Order was\npassed on 06.09.2024 without the Remand Report. Sufficient\nopportunity was not provided to the Ld. AO u/r 46A(3). The time\nframe

ASHISH SODANI,PIPARIYA vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes,

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

68 of the Act and Rs. 49,50,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act is hereby confirmed.” (vii) Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in next appeals before us. 3. During hearing before us, Ld. AR for assessee made following submissions: (i) That the assessee-individual has been engaged in proprietorship business named and styled

ASHISH SODANI,PIPARIYA vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes,

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

68 of the Act and Rs. 49,50,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act is hereby confirmed.” (vii) Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in next appeals before us. 3. During hearing before us, Ld. AR for assessee made following submissions: (i) That the assessee-individual has been engaged in proprietorship business named and styled

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), UJJAIN (STATIONED AT INDORE), UJJAIN vs. M/S. JPJ EXIM (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

68 namely identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction that supporting evidences filed by the assessee. The assessee further submitted that the share application money was received by the assessee from various individuals/HUFs in the Financial Year 2010-11 and there were being allotted with the shares in the Financial Year 2011-12 who are having valid PAN and regularly

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

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

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

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

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

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission