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

3, the Revenue challenges deletion of addition of Rs.3,67,49,655/- made by the AO under section 68

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, 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

3, the Revenue challenges deletion of addition of Rs.3,67,49,655/- made by the AO under section 68

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘A.Y.’) 2011-12 with the following grounds: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘A.Y.’) 2011-12 with the following grounds: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘A.Y.’) 2011-12 with the following grounds: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN vs. A ONE ENCLAVE, UJJAIN

In the result, grounds taken by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1(1), V/S M/S. A One Enclave, Ujjain 3687/1, Hariphatak Road, Ujjain

68, section section 69B, section 69C or 69, section 69A, section 69B, Section 69D at the rate of section 69C or Section 69D, if thirty percent; and such income is not covered (b) the amount of income tax under clause a), the income tax with which the assessee payable shall

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

3), section 68 cannot be applied and no addition can be made u/s 68:\n\"9. Even on legal

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

3. DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma in ITANo.185/Ind/2020, ITAT, Indore 4.DCIT vs. M/s. Punjab Retail Pvt. Ltd. ITANo.677/Ind/2019 ITAT, Indore 5.Gandhir Ram vs. Pr. CIT ITANo.121/Chd/2021, ITAT, Chandigarh 6. ACIT vs. M/s Signature Builders IT(SS) ANo.184 to 186/Ind/2018, ITAT, Indore 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the assessee itself has declared the excess stock

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

3). DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma in ITANo.185/Ind/2020, ITAT, Indore (4).DCIT vs. M/s. Punjab Retail Pvt. Ltd. ITANo.677/Ind/2019 ITAT, Indore (5).Gandhir Ram vs. Pr. CIT ITANo.121/Chd/2021, ITAT, Chandigarh (6). ACIT vs. M/s Signature Builders IT(SS) ANo.184 to 186/Ind/2018, ITAT, Indore 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that even if the assesse has recorded

DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE vs. PUNJAB RETAIL (P) LTD., INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

3 of the assessment order. The assessing officer then compared the said valuation with the cost of jewellery as per books of accounts as on the date of search which came to Rs. 81,85,90,485/- as provided on Page No. 5 of the assessment order. Difference of these two figures i.e. market value of jewellery found

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

Section 68 of the Act. 3. The assessee, a Private Company, filed its return of income on 07.08.2014 declaring

ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. HARIOM PROPERTIES, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

68,000/- made by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 43CA without appreciating:\na) the facts of the case available on record?\nb) that as per sub section (3

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

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

68 of the I.T. Act in respect of unsecured loan from various persons, even though their creditworthiness was not proved. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, , Ld. CIT (A) is justified in deleting the additions of Rs. 10,18.500/- on account or disallowances or interest on property claimed by the Sanjay Lunawat ITA No.396/Ind/2018

M/S PUMARTH PROPERTIES & HOLDING (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

3. Aggrieved by this the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the submissions affirm the view of the AO. Now the assessee is in further appeal. 4. The only effective ground in this appeal is declining the claim of set off against the additional income offered by the assessee. The Ld. counsel

DCIT,CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI KRIHNA KUMAR VERMA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI (Accountant Member)

3. The Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (“Sr. DR” for short) supporting the action of the Assessing Officer (“AO” for short) on the issue of chargeability of tax u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not justified in law allowing

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

sections": [ "144", "147", "153(6)", "68", "68(1)", "148", "143(2)", "143(3)", "234A(3)", "13", "11", "253", "254", "80-1", "292BB

SMT. ARCHANA CHANDAK,INDORE vs. ITO 3(2), INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal isallowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

3)/147of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The addition on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank to the tune of Rs.27,57,710/- under Section 68

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

section 143(3) of the Act by making certain additions. Against these additions, the assessee went in appeal before the first appellate authority, but partly succeeded. Against decisions of the ld.CIT(A)both the Century 21 Malls P.Ltd Vs. ACIT (Indore Bench) – (9 Cross-Appeals) 3 Revenue and assessee are before the Tribunal. First we take up appeals