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

5/- of a little known company would jump from Rs.5/- to Rs. 485/-. The findings recorded by the authorities are pure findings of facts based on a proper application of the material on record. While recording the said finding, the authorities have followed the tests laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in several decisions

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

5 of the revenue are dismissed. Ground No. 6: 10. During assessment-proceeding, Ld. AO observed that the assesee- company had shown a cash-credit of Rs. 47,11,900/- from Shri Nilesh Jain. On enquiry by Ld. AO, the assessee submitted that it purchased stamp papers from Shri Nilesh Jain in regard to registries made for purchase of lands

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

Appeals are dismissed

5,03,68,443/- (Rs.4,40,37,039 + Interest of Rs.\n63,31,404/-) has been added to the total income as unexplained cash credit\nu/s 68 of the IT act 1961 and the same is taxed u/s 115BBE of Income tax\nAct, 1961. After satisfying on the facts of the case penalty proceedings u/s\n271AAC are initiated separately

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

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 Tax (Appeals) has erred in concluding without any basis that

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 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.

45 DTK 0281, 330 ITR 029, held that Tribunal having confirmed the order of the CIT(A) deleting the impugned addition under s.: 68 holding that the assessee has been able to prove the identity of the share applicants and the share application money has been received by way of account payee cheques, no question of law arises. iii) Honorable

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

45,687 has been specifically mentioned. In respect of the advances received from other two customers namely, Anita Sureshkumar Sharma and Amit Shantilal Jain amounting to Rs. 5,00,000 and Rs. 7,75,000 it is submitted that the flats were registered in AY 2013-14 and included in the income. In the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2012 assessee

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

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

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

45,000/-\nC\nTotal cash deposited in bank from 09.11.2015\nto 31.12.2015\n10,00,000/-\n6.2\nA\nTotal cash deposited in bank in F.Y.2016-17\n3,21,80,200/-\nB\nTotal cash deposited in bank from 01.04.2016\nto 08.11.2016\n2,34,75,200/-\nC\nTotal cash deposited in bank from 09.11.2016\nto 31.12.2016\n40,00,000/-\n6.3\nA\nB\nC\nPercentage

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

5 the name “Bhopal Hoshangabad” and “bm” were found in the said pen-drive along with various accounting computer files. These tally accounts were also contained accounts of C-21 Mall P.Ltd., and Globus Telecom Ltd. One of the files viz. ‘21b/RSJNRS.DBF’ was an important file. This DBF files contained accounted and unaccounted data of assessee-company

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

5 the name “Bhopal Hoshangabad” and “bm” were found in the said pen-drive along with various accounting computer files. These tally accounts were also contained accounts of C-21 Mall P.Ltd., and Globus Telecom Ltd. One of the files viz. ‘21b/RSJNRS.DBF’ was an important file. This DBF files contained accounted and unaccounted data of assessee-company

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

5 the name “Bhopal Hoshangabad” and “bm” were found in the said pen-drive along with various accounting computer files. These tally accounts were also contained accounts of C-21 Mall P.Ltd., and Globus Telecom Ltd. One of the files viz. ‘21b/RSJNRS.DBF’ was an important file. This DBF files contained accounted and unaccounted data of assessee-company

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission