DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,732/- 18 3. Shri Utpal Goyal 1,31,868/- 18 4. Shri Narendra Barta 8,58,336/- 16 Total 45,65,847/- 5. According to the Ld. AO, such excess interest to the persons covered under Section 40A(2)(b

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,732/- 18 3. Shri Utpal Goyal 1,31,868/- 18 4. Shri Narendra Barta 8,58,336/- 16 Total 45,65,847/- 5. According to the Ld. AO, such excess interest to the persons covered under Section 40A(2)(b

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

68 in respect of opening balances when there is no sum credited in the current year. Secondly, in so far as the loan of Rs. 55,00,000/- accepted during the year from M/s Jayant is concerned, the CIT(A) has followed the decision of ITAT, Indore Bench in Tirupati Construction (supra) where the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of loans

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

68. The judgements are respectfully distinguished as it has clearly been held in the preceding discussion that further enquiries are required to be made to ascertain the creditworthiness and genuineness of the companies. M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. The assessee has also submitted that the loans have been repaid through proper banking channel. The submission has no relevance

M/S NISHANT FINANCE PVT.LTD,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL (I), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

b. 1 to 6 c. Sharda Kasliwal c.3,56,60,000 c. 1 to 6 d.Nishant Finance d.3,08,32,825 d. 1 to 6 Pvt. Ltd e.Manoj Kasliwal e.3,56,50,000 e. 1 to 6 f.Pumarth Infrastructure f.4,08,00,000 f. 4 to 8 Pvt.Ltd 4. Income Sumati Kumar 2013-14 Rs.13,61,94,600 2

SUMATI KUMAR KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

b. 1 to 6 c. Sharda Kasliwal c.3,56,60,000 c. 1 to 6 d.Nishant Finance d.3,08,32,825 d. 1 to 6 Pvt. Ltd e.Manoj Kasliwal e.3,56,50,000 e. 1 to 6 f.Pumarth Infrastructure f.4,08,00,000 f. 4 to 8 Pvt.Ltd 4. Income Sumati Kumar 2013-14 Rs.13,61,94,600 2

DYPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. , INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

b. 1 to 6 c. Sharda Kasliwal c.3,56,60,000 c. 1 to 6 d.Nishant Finance d.3,08,32,825 d. 1 to 6 Pvt. Ltd e.Manoj Kasliwal e.3,56,50,000 e. 1 to 6 f.Pumarth Infrastructure f.4,08,00,000 f. 4 to 8 Pvt.Ltd 4. Income Sumati Kumar 2013-14 Rs.13,61,94,600 2

PARTH KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (I), INDORE , INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

b. 1 to 6 c. Sharda Kasliwal c.3,56,60,000 c. 1 to 6 d.Nishant Finance d.3,08,32,825 d. 1 to 6 Pvt. Ltd e.Manoj Kasliwal e.3,56,50,000 e. 1 to 6 f.Pumarth Infrastructure f.4,08,00,000 f. 4 to 8 Pvt.Ltd 4. Income Sumati Kumar 2013-14 Rs.13,61,94,600 2

MANOJ KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (1), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

b. 1 to 6 c. Sharda Kasliwal c.3,56,60,000 c. 1 to 6 d.Nishant Finance d.3,08,32,825 d. 1 to 6 Pvt. Ltd e.Manoj Kasliwal e.3,56,50,000 e. 1 to 6 f.Pumarth Infrastructure f.4,08,00,000 f. 4 to 8 Pvt.Ltd 4. Income Sumati Kumar 2013-14 Rs.13,61,94,600 2

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD.,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

b. 1 to 6 c. Sharda Kasliwal c.3,56,60,000 c. 1 to 6 d.Nishant Finance d.3,08,32,825 d. 1 to 6 Pvt. Ltd e.Manoj Kasliwal e.3,56,50,000 e. 1 to 6 f.Pumarth Infrastructure f.4,08,00,000 f. 4 to 8 Pvt.Ltd 4. Income Sumati Kumar 2013-14 Rs.13,61,94,600 2

SHRIMATI SHARDA KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (I), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

b. 1 to 6 c. Sharda Kasliwal c.3,56,60,000 c. 1 to 6 d.Nishant Finance d.3,08,32,825 d. 1 to 6 Pvt. Ltd e.Manoj Kasliwal e.3,56,50,000 e. 1 to 6 f.Pumarth Infrastructure f.4,08,00,000 f. 4 to 8 Pvt.Ltd 4. Income Sumati Kumar 2013-14 Rs.13,61,94,600 2

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

40a ia..” Page 1 of 12 Reconnect Energy solution P. Ltd. Page 2 of 12 2. Ground no.1 is regarding the addition made u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of providing service to the Renewable Energy entities. The assessee filed its return of income on 16.10.2016 declaring loss of Rs.40

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

40A(3) and Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be said to be justified in view of the observations made hereinabove. Further, we find that the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) have not been controverted by the Ld.CIT-DR by bringing any contrary material on record. Hence, we do not find any infirmity

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

40A(3) and Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be said to be justified in view of the observations made hereinabove. Further, we find that the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) have not been controverted by the Ld.CIT-DR by bringing any contrary material on record. Hence, we do not find any infirmity

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

40A(3) and Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be said to be justified in view of the observations made hereinabove. Further, we find that the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) have not been controverted by the Ld.CIT-DR by bringing any contrary material on record. Hence, we do not find any infirmity

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 of the Act and bringing on record any positive and adverse material on record to make sustainable addition in the hands of assessee. We are unable to see any valid reason or basis to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the ld.CIT(A) and, thus, we uphold the same CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 as the addition was rightly deleted

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 of the Act and bringing on record any positive and adverse material on record to make sustainable addition in the hands of assessee. We are unable to see any valid reason or basis to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the ld.CIT(A) and, thus, we uphold the same CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 as the addition was rightly deleted

THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 of the Act and bringing on record any positive and adverse material on record to make sustainable addition in the hands of assessee. We are unable to see any valid reason or basis to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the ld.CIT(A) and, thus, we uphold the same CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 as the addition was rightly deleted

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

40A(3) of the Act at Rs.4,26,000/- , addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of bogus cash credit introduced in the books of account at Rs.2,76,42,000/- and addition of bogus creditors at Rs.83,05,400/- . Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and succeeded. 3. Now the revenue is in appeal before