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

section 68 only when such amount is actually credited in the books of accounts of the said year. It is further contended that the entire share application money was received prior to 01.04.2012 and was credited in the books of accounts of the respective earlier years. The appellant has contended that the addition has been made

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

264 is reproduced below:= 15 Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 "In order to understand the modalities of the donation in this case, the activity of the trust has to be seen. It is a unique way of creating impersonal wealth. In a village, like minded fanners get together and cultivate land and produce wealth in the service

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

264 is reproduced below:= 15 Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 "In order to understand the modalities of the donation in this case, the activity of the trust has to be seen. It is a unique way of creating impersonal wealth. In a village, like minded fanners get together and cultivate land and produce wealth in the service

NILESH JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2011-12 Nilesh Jain, Ito 1(1) 1, Gandhi Chowk, Indore बनाम/ Chandrawati Ganj Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ajxpj3919M Assessee By Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

section 68 of the Act. For this preposition reliance is placed on the following decisions mentioned below. >CIT v. Surinder Pal Anand [2010] 192 Taxman 264

ACIT (CENTRAL) , UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S GLOBUS HOUSING PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central) M/S. Globus Housing Pvt. Ltd. 176, Zone-Ii, First Floor, M.P. Ujjain Vs. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Aaecg 0623 J Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Yash Kukreja, Ars Date Of Hearing 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

68 cannot be made on the ground that the source of third person has not been proved satisfactory due to cash deposit in the bank account of those three persons. Further when the AO has examined the loan taken by Shri Bhatija in his assessment proceedings then the addition in the hands of the assesse company is not justified

M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT RANGE 1(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

68 in the immediately preceding assessment year. (xii) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 94,11,950/- made on account of disallowance of interest made to certain parties who not existed in A.Y.2008-09 which has been rightly done by the AO to keep the issue alive. (xiii) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 94,11,950/- made

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P LTD., INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

68 in the immediately preceding assessment year. (xii) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 94,11,950/- made on account of disallowance of interest made to certain parties who not existed in A.Y.2008-09 which has been rightly done by the AO to keep the issue alive. (xiii) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 94,11,950/- made

THE DCIT-1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

68 in the immediately preceding assessment year. (xii) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 94,11,950/- made on account of disallowance of interest made to certain parties who not existed in A.Y.2008-09 which has been rightly done by the AO to keep the issue alive. (xiii) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 94,11,950/- made

M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT -CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

68 in the immediately preceding assessment year. (xii) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 94,11,950/- made on account of disallowance of interest made to certain parties who not existed in A.Y.2008-09 which has been rightly done by the AO to keep the issue alive. (xiii) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 94,11,950/- made

SHREE SAI BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) II, BHOPAL

In the result Ground No.3 of the assessee’s Appeal for Assessment

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

264/- for Assessment Year 2009-10 and allow this issue raised in Ground No.2 of assessee’s appeal. Similar issue is raised in Ground No.2 for 2010-11 & 2011-12 and in view of our above finding we delete the disallowance of Rs.2,08,819/- and Rs. 2,29,024/- Shree Sai Builders IT(SS)A No.245 to 249/Ind/2017

DCIT 5 (1), INDORE vs. M/S SANVERWALA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2012-13 Dcit-5(1) M/S. Sanverwala Jewellers Pvt. Indore Ltd. बनाम/ 12, Chhota Sarafa Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaocs7650K Appellant By Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By S/Shri S.N. Agrawal & Bhavesh Agrawal, Ars Date Of Hearing: 22.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

68 of the Act. In cases of share application / share capital prior to the insertion of the explanation the appellant company needs to prove identity of the share applicant only. However, in the present case in hand the appellant has not only proved the identity of the share applicants but also proved the creditworthiness of the share applicant and genuineness

ACIT (CENTRAL) , UJJAIN vs. M/S. ARIBA FOODS (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

68 deleted on the ground Ariba Foods Pvt. Ltd & Ors. that opportunity of cross examination was not given. In this case too, the assessee had furnished the similar documentary evidences] ii) CIT vs. Metachem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 0160 (MP) iii) Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gau.) iii) CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers

THE ACIT (CENTRAL), UJJAIN vs. M/S. VYANKTESH PLASTICS & PACKAGING (P) LTD., UJJAIN

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

68 deleted on the ground Ariba Foods Pvt. Ltd & Ors. that opportunity of cross examination was not given. In this case too, the assessee had furnished the similar documentary evidences] ii) CIT vs. Metachem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 0160 (MP) iii) Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gau.) iii) CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers

THE ACIT (CENTRAL), UJJAIN vs. M/S. FAMOUS VANIJYA (P) LTD. , UJJAIN

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

68 deleted on the ground Ariba Foods Pvt. Ltd & Ors. that opportunity of cross examination was not given. In this case too, the assessee had furnished the similar documentary evidences] ii) CIT vs. Metachem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 0160 (MP) iii) Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gau.) iii) CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers

M/S. N.T.THOMAS MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL AND DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 1(2), INDORE

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena1.आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 139/Ind/2015 2. I.T.A. No. 150/Ind/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2011-12

264 ITR 110 [Bomb.], are with reference to Section 11 of the Act and are not applicable to the provision of Section 10(23C)(vi) of I.T. Act. Accordingly, the action of the AO was upheld. N.T. Thomas Memorial Educational & Society I.T.A. No.139 & 150 /Ind/2015/A.Y.: 11-12 Page 4 of11 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed