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

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & 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

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

42,020/-, which was subjected to scrutiny, statutory notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) were issued and ultimately the assessment-order was passed u/s 143(3) at a total income of Rs. 3,51,50,420/- after making certain additions. Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal to Ld. CIT(A) and got relief. Being aggrieved by order

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

42,000 From the above table it is evident that all these advances were given in the years much prior to the impugned year. The receipt of cash in the impugned year is against the advances which were given in the earlier years and are not cash credits under the ambit of provisions of section 68

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 Income-tax Act, 1961, where identity, genuineness and creditworthiness stands established. Thus, there was no reason for the Ld. CIT(A) to take a different view in assessment year under appeal i.e., 2009-2010. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that initial burden upon the assessee to prove

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 of the Act, viz. identity of “A” & “J”, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of “A” & “J”, have been duly established by furnishing a large number of statutory and non-statutory documents. In Para 5.2 of appeal-order, the CIT(A) has already accepted the satisfaction of first two ingredients i.e. the identity of “A” & “J” and genuineness

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

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

Appeals are dismissed

section 68 of the 1.T. Act.\"\n57. The AO has made this addition in Para 7 of assessment-order under\nthe hearing “Introduction of Capital”. The AO has noted the inferences\ngathered by him from Capital A/cs of 7 partners of assessee-firm and\nultimately made an addition of Rs.4,05,38,902/- [this figure is stated

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

Appeals are dismissed

section 68 of the 1.T. Act.\"\n57. The AO has made this addition in Para 7 of assessment-order under\nthe hearing “Introduction of Capital”. The AO has noted the inferences\ngathered by him from Capital A/cs of 7 partners of assessee-firm and\nultimately made an addition of Rs.4,05,38,902/- [this figure is stated

M/S OREF SECURITIES PRIVATE LTD. ,MANDSAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.70/Ind/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Vs. Ito, Mandsaur. M/S.Oref Securities P.Ltd. 69, Agrasen Nagar B/H. Mid India Mandsaur.

68 of the Act against share premium received by the assessee- company. Needless to mention that the ld.AO only on the basis of surmises, conjectures and presumption held that the companies providing premium are bogus and paper company. 7. The ld.CIT(A) has also confirmed addition on the wrong presumption that the alleged shareholder were not found

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 on account of unsecured loans if the assessee establishes the identity and creditworthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transactions as entered into with them. Our view is supported by the following judicial pronouncements: CIT, Meerut v. Avant Grade Carpets Ltd. as reported in [2015] 54 taxmann.com

PIYUSH JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(4), INDORE , ITO, INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

42,87,597\n2017-18\n38,80,68,899\n2018-19\nThe assessee formed a limited\nliability partnership firm and became\npartner in the said firm.\n8.\nHe further submitted that the rejection of cash book u/s 145(3) and application\nof section

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

section 68 cannot be applied and no addition can be made u/s 68:\n\"9. Even on legal side, we find merit in the submission made by Ld. AR\nthat once the AO has rejected books of assessee u/s 145, the addition u/s\n68 cannot be made. Their Lordship in CIT Vs. Dulla Ram (2014) 42

VIRENDRA KUMAR MANDOT,, SADAR BAZAR SAILANA RATLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO-1, RATLAM, RATLAM

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

68 of the Act. The contention\nof the appellant in raising these grounds is that the AO has not considered\ncash sales which have been taken in the P&L account and the addition made\nby the AO has resulted in double addition.\n8.1 There have been lot of judicial pronouncements on the issue of cash\ndeposits during demonetization period

THE ACIT RATLAM, RATLAM vs. ISHRI DEEPAK KUMAR SONI, RATLAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue’s stands dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13

68 holding that amount was deposited in cash in the bank account of lender immediately prior to date of loan -'HELD- Assessee has established the identity- The party has confirmed the transaction-If AO doubted the transaction, AO should have called creditor u/s 131-Addition cannot be made. Therefore, the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.65,42

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

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

section 68 sustaining/enhancing by observing that excess expenditure on the amount account of cost of Century 21 Malls P.Ltd Vs. ACIT (Indore Bench) – (9 Cross-Appeals) 29 belongs to Shri construction Keshav Nanchani determined by the DVO. 2009-10 Rs.20,04,41,842/- 7,03,97,955 Rs.1,99,42

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 sustaining/enhancing by observing that excess expenditure on the amount account of cost of Century 21 Malls P.Ltd Vs. ACIT (Indore Bench) – (9 Cross-Appeals) 29 belongs to Shri construction Keshav Nanchani determined by the DVO. 2009-10 Rs.20,04,41,842/- 7,03,97,955 Rs.1,99,42

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

section 68 sustaining/enhancing by observing that excess expenditure on the amount account of cost of Century 21 Malls P.Ltd Vs. ACIT (Indore Bench) – (9 Cross-Appeals) 29 belongs to Shri construction Keshav Nanchani determined by the DVO. 2009-10 Rs.20,04,41,842/- 7,03,97,955 Rs.1,99,42