THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 liable to deleted. The ld.CIT(A) in turn deleted the same, by holding that no incriminating documents/evidences in respect of these loans were found during the course of search and those additions were outside the purview of section 153A. Therefore, since the loans taken were found to be genuine, disallowance of interest on such loans was not valid

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 liable to deleted. The ld.CIT(A) in turn deleted the same, by holding that no incriminating documents/evidences in respect of these loans were found during the course of search and those additions were outside the purview of section 153A. Therefore, since the loans taken were found to be genuine, disallowance of interest on such loans was not valid

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

68 of the IT Act whereas credit worthiness of the creditors was not proved either at the time of assessment or at the time of appellate proceedings. 3. Ld. CIT (A) erred is not considering the fact that financials of most of the creditors is question are having no capital, no funds and no income to provide funds

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S. CENTURE 21 MALL PVT. LTD., 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

68 of the IT Act whereas credit worthiness of the creditors was not proved either at the time of assessment or at the time of appellate proceedings. 3. Ld. CIT (A) erred is not considering the fact that financials of most of the creditors is question are having no capital, no funds and no income to provide funds

THE DCIT-2(1), INDORE vs. M/S. CENTURY 21 MALL (P) LTD., 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

68 of the IT Act whereas credit worthiness of the creditors was not proved either at the time of assessment or at the time of appellate proceedings. 3. Ld. CIT (A) erred is not considering the fact that financials of most of the creditors is question are having no capital, no funds and no income to provide funds

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 292C got attracted according to which the diary is presumed to be owned by assessee; (ii) the date-wise entries of transactions mentioned on Page No. 6 of the diary are duly initialed by Shri D.K. Goyal, partner of assessee; (iii) the name of Shri Neeraj Goyal, partnerof assessee, appears in the diary at Page No. 15 which

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 292C got attracted according to which the diary is presumed to be owned by assessee; (ii) the date-wise entries of transactions mentioned on Page No. 6 of the diary are duly initialed by Shri D.K. Goyal, partner of assessee; (iii) the name of Shri Neeraj Goyal, partnerof assessee, appears in the diary at Page No. 15 which

M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 292C got attracted according to which the diary is presumed to be owned by assessee; (ii) the date-wise entries of transactions mentioned on Page No. 6 of the diary are duly initialed by Shri D.K. Goyal, partner of assessee; (iii) the name of Shri Neeraj Goyal, partnerof assessee, appears in the diary at Page No. 15 which

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 292C got attracted according to which the diary is presumed to be owned by assessee; (ii) the date-wise entries of transactions mentioned on Page No. 6 of the diary are duly initialed by Shri D.K. Goyal, partner of assessee; (iii) the name of Shri Neeraj Goyal, partnerof assessee, appears in the diary at Page No. 15 which

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 292C got attracted according to which the diary is presumed to be owned by assessee; (ii) the date-wise entries of transactions mentioned on Page No. 6 of the diary are duly initialed by Shri D.K. Goyal, partner of assessee; (iii) the name of Shri Neeraj Goyal, partnerof assessee, appears in the diary at Page No. 15 which

CHIRAYU CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,BHOPAL vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradchirayu Charitable Pcit (Central), Foundation,Bhopal Indore Bhopal Highway, Bhaisakhedi, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aaaac3656P Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Advocate, Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar, Advs Date Of Hearing 05.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement .02.2021 O R D E R Per Manish Borad, Am.

292C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is reiterated that in the regular assessment proceedings conducted much prior to search, above documents were furnished and receipts of donation were examined and genuineness was accepted and the assessments were completed. It is submitted that section 13 is for assessment and not for registration. There is no concrete material / evidence

M/S LAXMI NARAYAN SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs. ADDL. CIT, GWALIOR

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

68,50,000 3,11,17,500 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but could not succeed. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in these appeals before us assailing the orders of lower authorities. 6. Learned Representatives of both sides agree that the issue and facts involved in all these ten appeals are identical except change

LAXMI NARAYAN SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs. ADD.CIT RANGE -BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

68,50,000 3,11,17,500 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but could not succeed. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in these appeals before us assailing the orders of lower authorities. 6. Learned Representatives of both sides agree that the issue and facts involved in all these ten appeals are identical except change

LAXMI NARAYAN SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs. ADDL.CIT -RANGE,BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

68,50,000 3,11,17,500 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but could not succeed. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in these appeals before us assailing the orders of lower authorities. 6. Learned Representatives of both sides agree that the issue and facts involved in all these ten appeals are identical except change

LAXMI NARAYAN SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs. ADDL.CIT -RANGE , BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

68,50,000 3,11,17,500 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but could not succeed. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in these appeals before us assailing the orders of lower authorities. 6. Learned Representatives of both sides agree that the issue and facts involved in all these ten appeals are identical except change

SH LAXMI NARAYAN SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs. ADDL.CIT CENTRAL RANGE, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

68,50,000 3,11,17,500 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but could not succeed. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in these appeals before us assailing the orders of lower authorities. 6. Learned Representatives of both sides agree that the issue and facts involved in all these ten appeals are identical except change

SH LAXMI NARAYAN SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs. ADDL.CIT CENTRAL RANGE, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

68,50,000 3,11,17,500 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but could not succeed. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in these appeals before us assailing the orders of lower authorities. 6. Learned Representatives of both sides agree that the issue and facts involved in all these ten appeals are identical except change

M/S LAXMI NARAYAN SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs. ADDL. CIT, GWALIOR

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

68,50,000 3,11,17,500 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but could not succeed. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in these appeals before us assailing the orders of lower authorities. 6. Learned Representatives of both sides agree that the issue and facts involved in all these ten appeals are identical except change

SH LAXMI NARAYAN SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs. ADDL.CIT CENTRAL RANGE, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

68,50,000 3,11,17,500 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but could not succeed. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in these appeals before us assailing the orders of lower authorities. 6. Learned Representatives of both sides agree that the issue and facts involved in all these ten appeals are identical except change