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 IT Act. 9.11 In taking a view that the appellant should have paid the sundry creditors out ofjthe proceeds of^share issue, the AO has sought to put himself in the armchair of a businessman. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

THE ITO 2 (1) INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S HI LINK CITY HOMES P LTD,, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, 2(1) M/S. Hi Link City Homes Indore Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 06, Sadhna Nagar, Vs. Airport Road, Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aacch5920K Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani & Shri Pankaj Shah, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2022

33,50,500/- and net reserves and surplus of Rs.1,08,62,25,646/-. Bank statement, confirmation of account, ledger statement, audited financial statement, Memorandum of Association and tax deducted at source certificate are placed on record which in totality are sufficient to prove identity of this company, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of this company It is further

THE I.T.O. 2 (1), INDORE vs. M/S HI LINK BUILDCON P LTD , INDORE

In the result, this appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, 2(1) M/S. Hi Link Buildcon Pvt. Indore Ltd. बनाम/ 06, Sadhna Nagar, Vs. Airport Road, Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aacch7180H Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani & Shri Pankaj Shah, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2022

33,480 19,51,58,958 200,00,000 10.24% 6.7.5 It has been argued that, it is clear from the above table shows that the lender company had the financial capacity of advancing around 10 times more. 7.6 To prove the genuineness of the transaction following documents have been produced by the appellant of the lender company:- a) Bank

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

section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, we of the considered opinion that there was no justification for making addition to the total income of the assessee on account of capital introduced by its partners since the assessee duly justified the identity and creditworthiness of the partners as well as genuineness of the transactions as entered into with them

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

Appeals are dismissed

33,897/- which is\nshown by the assessee under the head of 'Sundry Creditors' stands\nunexplained and it is considered as 'unexplained credit or 'unexplained\nliability' within the meaning of section 68

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

Appeals are dismissed

33,897/- which is\nshown by the assessee under the head of 'Sundry Creditors' stands\nunexplained and it is considered as 'unexplained credit or 'unexplained\nliability' within the meaning of section 68

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 of 44 M/s Decent

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

68 of the Act or deny claim of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act and therefore, the addition made and confirmed is invalid. 2.7 That various adverse findings and conclusions recorded by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are factually incorrect and contrary to record, legally misconceived and untenable. 2.8 That the learned Commissioner of Income

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 (kindly refer CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del) and DCIT vs. Sanwerwala Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 42 ITJ 298 (Trib. Indore). We submit that the respondent proved the source of the source besides the fact that all three lender companies had given unsecured loans had filed their Income tax return whereby identity

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.32/Ind/2018 rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A) as the assessee filed requisite documentary evidences so as to justify the identity and creditworthiness of these parties and genuineness of the transactions as entered into with them. Thus, we confirm

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

NEMICHAND JAIN HUF,BERASIA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year: 2019-20 Nemichand Jain Huf Pcit (Central), Prop. M/S. Mahavir Bhopal बनाम/ Jewellers. Near Bus Stand Vs. Berasia (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aachn1847E Assessee By Shri Govind Rinwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2025

33,86,608/- surrendered by assessee during survey. Therefore, according to Ld. PCIT, the non-initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) has rendered the assessment-order as erroneous-cum-prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5. However, the provision of section 271AAC(1) reads as under: “Penalty in respect of certain income. 271AAC. (1) The Assessing Officer

SRIYANS KUMAR JAIN HUF,BERASIA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2019-20 Sriyans Kumar Jain Huf, Pcit (Central), Prop. Of M/S Siryans Bhopal Kumar Akshay Kumar Jain, बनाम/ Main Road, Vs. Berasia

33,86,608/- surrendered by assessee during survey. Therefore, according to Ld. PCIT, the non-initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) has rendered the assessment-order as erroneous-cum- prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5. However, the provision of section 271AAC(1) reads as under: “Penalty in respect of certain income. 271AAC. (1) The Assessing Officer

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 40A(3) of the I. T. Act.” 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case- records perused. 3. Brief facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee- individual submitted his return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 17,29,650/- which was subjected to scrutiny assessment u/s 143(2). Finally

NEMINATH DEVELOPERS,UJJAIN vs. ACIT2(1) , UJJAIN

Appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2015-16 Neminath Developers, Acit 2(1) 105, Mani Trade Centre, Ujjain बनाम/ Shanku Marg Freeganj, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aagfn3566L Assessee By Shri Pavan Ved, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026

33,13,140/- as unexplained squared up bogus cash credit under section 68, stating these were opening balances of creditors

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

33,00,000 made under section 68 of the Act and Ground no. 2 of Cross Objection of the assessee

KUSUM YADAV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

68 of the Act.\nObserving as above, the Ld. first appellate authority dismissed the\nappeal.\n7.\nNow, the matter is in appeal before the tribunal on the grounds contained in\nthe memorandum of appeal.\n8.\nThe first two grounds of appeal taken by the assessee is in relation to\nassumption of jurisdiction

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 68, and (ii) deletion of addition of Rs.1,01,11,118/- made by the AO on account of unexplained expenditure based on DVO’s report. These issues are reflected in the following grounds: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3