THE DCIT, 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. MODERN LABORATORIES, INDORE

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ ./ ./ I.T.A. No.277 & Co.16/Ind/2014 ./ "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09

293(Del), Bharat Medical DCIT v 1(1) v Modern Laboratories / I. T. A. No. 277/Ind/2014& CO.No.16/Ind/2014/AY:08-09 Page 6 of 29 Stores [2009] 308 ITR 373(P&H) and Voltamp Transformers Pvt. Ltd. [1981] 129 ITR 105 (Guj). This explain the role of commission agents in government contract and describes the details of service rendered by them

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

293 (Guj.)]. Where the amount was given with specific direction for construction of Wadi, it shall be treated as having been for corpus. [CIT v Sthanakvasi Vardhman Vanik Jain Sangh (2003) 260 ITR 366 (Guj.)]. Treatment of corpus donations: Corpus donations cannot be treated as income in view of the exception under section 12, so that such corpus donations

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

293 (Guj.)]. Where the amount was given with specific direction for construction of Wadi, it shall be treated as having been for corpus. [CIT v Sthanakvasi Vardhman Vanik Jain Sangh (2003) 260 ITR 366 (Guj.)]. Treatment of corpus donations: Corpus donations cannot be treated as income in view of the exception under section 12, so that such corpus donations

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AVILABLE FINANCE LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 viz creditworthiness, of the loan creditors and the genuineness of the transactions, which have been doubted, by the AO in the assessment order. Both these issues are discussed here under: 6. A. CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE LENDER COMPANIES: The facts pertaining to each company are discussed separately as under.- 6.1 I. M/S CHAMAK

M/S AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD.,INDORE vs. THEDCIT 1(1) , INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 viz creditworthiness, of the loan creditors and the genuineness of the transactions, which have been doubted, by the AO in the assessment order. Both these issues are discussed here under: 6. A. CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE LENDER COMPANIES: The facts pertaining to each company are discussed separately as under.- 6.1 I. M/S CHAMAK

DY. CIT -1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 viz creditworthiness, of the loan creditors and the genuineness of the transactions, which have been doubted, by the AO in the assessment order. Both these issues are discussed here under: 6. A. CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE LENDER COMPANIES: The facts pertaining to each company are discussed separately as under.- 6.1 I. M/S CHAMAK

THE ACIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR SETHI, INDORE

In the result appeal filed by the revenue being I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

293/- Ltd 1,02,00,000/- 6,14,855/- Addition of Rs.5,25,000/- made for Assessment Year 2006-07 for procuring loans. S.No. Name of the Company Unsecured loans Interest paid taken 1 Trimurti Finvest P.Ltd 35,00,000/- 1,80,875/- 2 Purvi Finvest Ltd 30,00,000/- 1,25,250/- 3 K.K. Patel Finance

SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR SETHI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result appeal filed by the revenue being I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

293/- Ltd 1,02,00,000/- 6,14,855/- Addition of Rs.5,25,000/- made for Assessment Year 2006-07 for procuring loans. S.No. Name of the Company Unsecured loans Interest paid taken 1 Trimurti Finvest P.Ltd 35,00,000/- 1,80,875/- 2 Purvi Finvest Ltd 30,00,000/- 1,25,250/- 3 K.K. Patel Finance

THE ACIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR SETHI, INDORE

In the result appeal filed by the revenue being I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

293/- Ltd 1,02,00,000/- 6,14,855/- Addition of Rs.5,25,000/- made for Assessment Year 2006-07 for procuring loans. S.No. Name of the Company Unsecured loans Interest paid taken 1 Trimurti Finvest P.Ltd 35,00,000/- 1,80,875/- 2 Purvi Finvest Ltd 30,00,000/- 1,25,250/- 3 K.K. Patel Finance

SHRI NILESH JAIN HUF,INDORE vs. ITO 4(2), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 on account of alleged commission on surmises and conjectures. The said addition being wrong and uncalled for is prayed to be deleted. Ayush Jain & Ors ITA No.616, 617/Ind/2019 & 293&294/Ind/2020 3.The order passed by the AO without following the principle of natural justice is bad in law and is prayed to be quashed. 4.That the appellant craves leave

PRITESH JAIN HUF,INDORE vs. ITO 4 (2), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 on account of alleged commission on surmises and conjectures. The said addition being wrong and uncalled for is prayed to be deleted. Ayush Jain & Ors ITA No.616, 617/Ind/2019 & 293&294/Ind/2020 3.The order passed by the AO without following the principle of natural justice is bad in law and is prayed to be quashed. 4.That the appellant craves leave

BHOLA SINGH THAKUR,INDORE vs. I T O 4(1), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

293 ITR 464 and the judgment in the case of DCIT vs. Turquoise Investment & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 143, are of the considered view that additional legal ground raised by the assessee deserves to be admitted as it is purely legal in nature and goes to the root of the matter and all the material relating to the additional

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

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 41(1) were not\napplicable.\nWithout considering nature of business and audited accounts\nmaintained by the company and details of payments made in next month itself\nto many suppliers, amounts payable to all creditors were assessed to tax u/s\n68 of the Act at Rs.722.60 lacs as unproved/unexplained r.w.s. 115BBE of the\nAct vide para

SHRI SHAILENDRA BANSAL S/O RADHESHYAMJI BANSAL,BARWAHA vs. THE ITO-5(2), INDORE

In the result, both of the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

293/- on 19.10.2006. Thereafter, a sum of Rs. 7,14,000/- was transferred from mother’s account to assessee’s account on 19.10.2006, which is evident from a debit-entry appearing in the same pass-book of mother. Copy of pass-book of assessee’s bank account was also filed to Ld. CIT(A) (Page No. 6 of Paper-Book

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:

section 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

SMT. PUSHPA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO WARD 5(2), INDORE, AAYKAR BHAWAN, OPPOSITE WHITE CHURCH, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

68,11,461/- for AY 2017-13 has escaped assessment on account of failure on the part of\nassessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment, for that\n24 APR 2018\nTrue Copy\nk\nSmt. Pushpa Agrawal\nITA No. 499/Ind/2024 – AY 2012-13\n Assessment Year, and therefore the provision of section

DCIT-CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL vs. M/S SINGNATURE COLONISERS, BHOPAL

In the result, both the departmental appeals i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Abxfs 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Accfs 9498 Q … Respondent

68 of LPS-72 cannot be used against the assessee. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) relying upon the relevant judicial pronouncements discussed the legal admissibility of the ‘dumb document’ holding Signature Coloniser/Builder 11 ITA 218 and 219 of 2020 that the a dumb document cannot be used as an evidence to draw an adverse inference against the assessee. We find

DCIT,CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL vs. M/S SIGNATURE BUILDERS AND COLONISER, BHOPAL

In the result, both the departmental appeals i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Abxfs 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Accfs 9498 Q … Respondent

68 of LPS-72 cannot be used against the assessee. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) relying upon the relevant judicial pronouncements discussed the legal admissibility of the ‘dumb document’ holding Signature Coloniser/Builder 11 ITA 218 and 219 of 2020 that the a dumb document cannot be used as an evidence to draw an adverse inference against the assessee. We find