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

section 68 cannot apply to the issue in hand. 14. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and also perused the record as well as judicial precedents cited. We observe that a total sum of Rs. 1,21,49,560/- (assessee’s part is Rs. 47,11,900/-) has been shown as outstanding by assessee and its group

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

45,002/-. The assessee produced the details of capital contribution by 11(eleven) partners along with their name, PAN, Address and amount of capital contributed. The assessee also relied upon various decisions on this point that the capital introduced by the partners cannot be added u/s 68 of the Act when the assessee has produced the record to show source

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

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 and not u/s 56(2)(viib ). 1.2 The AO has not made addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) but. has discussed the section in detail We have raised ground no. 1 to keep this matter alive. If any adjudication is to be given on this issue, We may be given some time to give separate submission on this

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. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT (A) erred in restricting the amount of Agricultural income of Rs. 5,00,000/- as against Agricultural income of Rs. 8,14,000/- as declared by the assessee in his return of total income

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

68 are not applicable. Further, the appellant cannot be questioned on receipt of cash as there is no limitation on amount being received in cash on account of return of business advance given earlier. 9. Reliance is placed on following judicial precedence’s – a. Hon’ble Hyderabad Bench of ITAT in the case of SB Steel Industries

ITO 1(3), AYKAR BHAWAN ANNEX, INDORE vs. M/S. FAIRDEAL ENGINEERING & BODY BUILDING CO. (P) LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

45,520/- as shown by the appellant. 7.1 I have gone through the assessment order, the written submissions filed by the appellant, the documentary evidences placed on record, the remand report of the AO on the issue and the counter comments filed by the appellant. 7.2 It has been noticed that the addition of Rs.24,75,642/- has been made

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

section 68 of the Act that if the assessee has explained the identity and capacity of the investor as well as the genuineness of the transactions then the addition cannot be made. Accordingly when the assessee itself has given the fair market value which was considered by the AO while making addition of the excess amount of premium over

AVIRAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 68 of the Act. 5. otherwise also, looking to the overall particulars of such accounts as hereunder:- (Amount in Rs.) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 Sr. Name of the Party Credits Debits on Closing 2 Aviral Industries during the account of year sale of shares & Adinath Shares 1 2,29,80,000 84,50,000 1,45

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

68,14,619/- whereas the DVO assessed the cost at Rs.4,01,45,455/-, and thus having a difference of Rs.33,30,846/-. The ld.AO had accordingly proposed an addition of Rs.33,30,846/- by issuance of notice. The assessee in his reply/objection dated 31.01.2013 objected to the DVO’s estimation by pointing out various defects, which

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

68,14,619/- whereas the DVO assessed the cost at Rs.4,01,45,455/-, and thus having a difference of Rs.33,30,846/-. The ld.AO had accordingly proposed an addition of Rs.33,30,846/- by issuance of notice. The assessee in his reply/objection dated 31.01.2013 objected to the DVO’s estimation by pointing out various defects, which

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

68,14,619/- whereas the DVO assessed the cost at Rs.4,01,45,455/-, and thus having a difference of Rs.33,30,846/-. The ld.AO had accordingly proposed an addition of Rs.33,30,846/- by issuance of notice. The assessee in his reply/objection dated 31.01.2013 objected to the DVO’s estimation by pointing out various defects, which

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

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

68 of the Act as unexplained deposit .\n5.\nThe matter was carried in appeal before the first appellate authority and\ndetails submission has been filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC in\ncourse of the appellate proceedings and the ld. first appellate authority has\ndismissed the appeal by sustaining both the additions observing as follows

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

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 143(3) of the Act on the allegation that cash was deposited during the demonetization period and the return of income was not filed within the prescribed time for A.Y. 2017-18. 4. That vide Re-assessment order dated 22.08.2021, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 28,07,500/- on account of cash deposits during

THE ACIT (CENTRAL) II, BHOPAL vs. M/S SIGNATURE BUILDERS, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

section 68 and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- made by Ld. AO. We do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold the action of Ld. CIT(A). 13. In view of these findings, we are of the view that

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 of the Act to justify the identity and creditworthiness of 43 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others the investor company and genuineness of the transactions entered into with the said company. Further, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) have not been controverted by the Ld. CIT-DR by bringing any contrary material on record. Hence

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 of the Act to justify the identity and creditworthiness of 43 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others the investor company and genuineness of the transactions entered into with the said company. Further, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) have not been controverted by the Ld. CIT-DR by bringing any contrary material on record. Hence

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 of the Act to justify the identity and creditworthiness of 43 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others the investor company and genuineness of the transactions entered into with the said company. Further, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) have not been controverted by the Ld. CIT-DR by bringing any contrary material on record. Hence