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, 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

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, 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

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

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

46A and failed to controvert the documents furnished by the assessee on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee filed ample documentary evidences and discharged the primary onus cast upon it under section 68

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

46A and failed to controvert the documents furnished by the assessee on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee filed ample documentary evidences and discharged the primary onus cast upon it under section 68

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

46A and failed to controvert the documents furnished by the assessee on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee filed ample documentary evidences and discharged the primary onus cast upon it under section 68

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S MAYUR INDUSTRIES, FATEPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniit(Ss)A No.212/Ind/2021 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vs. Acit, Central-2, M/S. Mayur Industries, Indore Khandwa "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abefm 4664 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri P. K. Mishra, Cit.D.R. Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Assessee By : 19.12.2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2023 O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Bhopal (M.P.) (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Order Dated 30.12.2019 Passed By The Dcit (Central)-2, Indore (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘A.Y.’) 2018-19 With The Following Ground:

Section 68 of the Act. 4. The brief fact leading to the case is this that the Ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that all the partners had introduced capital in the assessee firm during the year under consideration and no documents except SS 212 of 2021 3 Mayur Ind. for the ledger account

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

CHANDRA SAHU,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(4), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

46A which go the root of the matter. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A)-I, Bhopal erred in sustaining addition of Rs.4,50,000/- 2 Smt. Chandra Sahu ITA No.75 & 76/Ind/2019 under section 69A which was made by Ld. A.O of by applying the provisions of section 68

CHANDRA SAHU,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(4), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

46A which go the root of the matter. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A)-I, Bhopal erred in sustaining addition of Rs.4,50,000/- 2 Smt. Chandra Sahu ITA No.75 & 76/Ind/2019 under section 69A which was made by Ld. A.O of by applying the provisions of section 68

ACIT 2 (1), INDORE vs. M/S JILA INDUSTRIES LTD, DHAR

In the result this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R.Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanivirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit-2(1), Indore M/S. Jiji Industries Ltd., (Formerly Known As बनाम/ Krishna Profiles Pvt. Ltd.), Vs. Plot No.316, Sejwaya, Billod, Dhar (Mp) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A.N. - Aacck 1383 M Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2022

section 68 of the Act and thereby made addition of Rs. 75,00,000/- for the sole reason that the assessee could not submit the details and evidences required by Ld. AO during assessment-proceeding. But subsequently during appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted all evidences to Ld. CIT(A) in terms of Rule 46A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL vs. SH. PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA, BHOPAL

In the result the “impugned order” is sustained on the first

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit, Prakash Chandra, बनाम/ Bhopal 16/244, Kings Vs. Shopping Centre, Mp Nagar, Zone-I, Bhopal-462011 Madhya Pradesh (Pan:Aappg5194E)

section 68. As a result, ground no 2 is partly allowed. (5). In result, the appeal is partly allowed. 4. That the Revenue being aggrieved by the “Impugned order” has preferred the instant appeal before this Tribunal and has raised the following grounds of appeal in the Form No. 36 against the “Impugned order” which are as under

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 liable to deleted. The ld.CIT(A) in turn deleted the same, by holding that no incriminating documents/evidences in respect of these loans were found during the course of search and those additions were outside the purview of section 153A. Therefore, since the loans taken were found to be genuine, disallowance of interest on such loans was not valid

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 liable to deleted. The ld.CIT(A) in turn deleted the same, by holding that no incriminating documents/evidences in respect of these loans were found during the course of search and those additions were outside the purview of section 153A. Therefore, since the loans taken were found to be genuine, disallowance of interest on such loans was not valid

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 liable to deleted. The ld.CIT(A) in turn deleted the same, by holding that no incriminating documents/evidences in respect of these loans were found during the course of search and those additions were outside the purview of section 153A. Therefore, since the loans taken were found to be genuine, disallowance of interest on such loans was not valid

M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-CIRCLE-1(2), INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borada.Y. 2011-12

46A as to the maintainability of the said document. 5. That even on merits the addition of Rs.55,30,000/- sustained by the ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted as the provisions of Section 68

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

46A of the I.T. Rules, and permission was granted. Assessee filed the confirmation letter, computation of income, bank statements, PAN No. These details were forwarded to the assessing officer. During the remand proceedings Ld. Assessing Officer called all the 13 cash creditors to appear before him and explain the loan/credit given to the assessee. Out of 13 cash creditors

ITO3(1) , INDORE vs. M/S PARAMETRIC TRADING P LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

46A of the IT Rules. Rather the Ld. DR chose to counter the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on merit. Hence, this ground of appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed. 4. On merit, the deletion of addition made on the following counts has been challenged before us by the Revenue: i. Rs.23,67,56,210/- on account