M/S NIKHIL ESTATE P LTD,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE (3) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Nikhil Estate Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Central)-3 M-102, Mezzanine, Floor, Indore Dhan Trident, P. No.B-3 Pu- Vs. 4, Sch. No.54, Vijay Nagar Square, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 8056 D Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.06.2023

27 ITJ 172 (Trib.-Indore). Nonetheless, neither the search party during course of search nor the AO during assessment proceeding found that appellant has been doing business other than manufacturing and trading of gold ornaments or has any other undisclosed source of income. Further the excess stock found in possession of the appellant was not kept separately

M/S SUPREMO INDIA LTD ,INDORE vs. THE AIT CENTRAL 3, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

27 ITJ 172 (Trib.-Indore). Nonetheless, neither the search party during course of search nor the AO during assessment proceeding found that appellant has been doing business other than manufacturing and trading of gold ornaments or has any other undisclosed source of income. Further the excess stock found in possession of the appellant was not kept separately

ACIT 5 (1), BHOPAL vs. M/S VINDHYA SOLVENT PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

27 - view of section 56(2)(viib) and Rule 11UA, this consideration is not relevant. Further, the observations are incorrect also.” The observation made by the Ld.CIT(A) is found to be justified in view of the reasons assigned therein. 11. Considering the entire aspect of the matter particularly the provisions of law prescribed under Rule 11UA

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

27. Section 68 requires the Assessing Officer to satisfy itself of the source of the credit and if during

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 is very much illegal. Ld. DR for assessee has though relied upon statements of Shri Anand Sharma and the observations made by AO in various paras of assessment-order (as narrated by us in foregoing paras of this order) but, however, could not controvert these vital points as noted by us. Page 27

TYHE ITO-4(5), INDORE vs. M/S. URVASHI WORLD WIDE P. LTD., INDORE

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13

section 68 of the Act and, therefore, the first appellate order may kindly be upheld by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 10. On careful consideration of the above rival submissions, first of all, I note that the addition pertaining to ground No.1 of the Revenue has been deleted by the ld.CIT(A) with the following observations and findings

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

Appeals are dismissed

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 from producing such evidences. The rule

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

section 68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 was not justified and was 27 Sanjay Lunawat ITA No.396/Ind/2018 & C.O.No

THE DCIT,1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. RITSPIN SYNTHETICS LTD., PITHAMPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms indicated above, and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 of the Act and taxed the same under section 115BBE of the Act. Consequentially, the interest expenditure of ₹25,27

THE ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. M/S. SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by the Revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13

68 of the I.T. 21 Sunderdeep Construction Pvt. Ltd Act does not come into play. No material was brought by the Ld. A.O to prove that the money was the assessee’s own undisclosed income” (emphasis supplied). 16. As regards the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd (supra) relied

DCIT-4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COM. PVT. LTD., TALOJA, RAIGARH

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 in the year under appeal................." 17. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition made by the Ld. AO observed as follows: “5.14 The appellant has submitted various documents in support of its claim. The said documents were verified by this office. After verification of the same, following facts emerge out which

YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY (P) LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN FROLIC REALTY (P) LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(1) , INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 in the year under appeal................." 17. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition made by the Ld. AO observed as follows: “5.14 The appellant has submitted various documents in support of its claim. The said documents were verified by this office. After verification of the same, following facts emerge out which

ACIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. SANJAY LADDHA, INDORE

section 68 r.w.s.115BBE of\nthe Act by treating the cash as unexplained money of the assessee.\n2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)\nerred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,21,80,200/- on the basis of additional\nevidences ignoring the facts that the conditions laid down

VIRENDRA KUMAR MANDOT,, SADAR BAZAR SAILANA RATLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO-1, RATLAM, RATLAM

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

68 of the Act. The contention\nof the appellant in raising these grounds is that the AO has not considered\ncash sales which have been taken in the P&L account and the addition made\nby the AO has resulted in double addition.\n8.1 There have been lot of judicial pronouncements on the issue of cash\ndeposits during demonetization period

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 of\nthe Act. In view of the above deliberations and case laws relied upon by both the parties,\nwe find that the AO was not justified in making an addition of Rs.2,90,93,500/- u/s 68 of\nthe Act which has rightly been deleted the Id. CIT(A) and we concur with his findings.\nThus

RECONNECT ENERGY SOLUTION P LT,BENGALURU vs. THE DCIT 4(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoreconnect Energy Solution Ltd. Dcit 1(4) No.22, Vk Kalyani, 7Th Floor Indore Vs. Sankey Road, Bengaluru (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aafcr 0074 H Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2023

section 68 of the Act that if the assessee has explained the identity and capacity of the investor as well as the genuineness of the transactions then the addition cannot be made. Accordingly when the assessee itself has given the fair market value which was considered by the AO while making addition of the excess amount of premium over

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

section 68 does not permit any addition qua the opening balances which are carried forward from earlier year and not accepted during the year. Ld. CIT(A) has rightly taken into account the decision of (i) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Usha Stud Farms (301 ITR 384), (ii) Shri Vardhman Overseas Page

M/S CENTURY 21 MALLS P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

27. Accordingly, the assessee submitted before the ld.CIT(A) that in light of the various documents furnished, the onus cast on the assessee to prove the transactions was discharged, and therefore, the impugned addition made under section 68