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

Section 69 of the Income-Tax Act,1961-Unexplained investments. AY.1998-99. During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officers found that assessee had purchased certain shares of a company Page 16 of 26 Shri Rupesh Vyas Assessment year 2015-16 at rate between Rs. 2.50 and Rs. 3.40 per share in month of April, 1997 and part of those shares were sold

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

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

68 of the Act. On appeal the CIT(A) has confirmed the said addition for want of any evidence. 13.1 Before the Tribunal Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee has taken this loan from Bajaj Finance Limited a non- banking financial institution and ledger of loan from Bajaj Finance was duly produced before

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

Appeals are dismissed

section 68 and the AO has not made further investigation to\nprove that the transactions of impugned loans were not genuine. We do not\nfind any error or mistake in these observations and conclusion made by\nCIT(A) and accordingly do not find any reason to interfere with the order of\nCIT(A). Consequently, we uphold the same

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

Appeals are dismissed

section 68 and the AO has not made further investigation to\nprove that the transactions of impugned loans were not genuine. We do not\nfind any error or mistake in these observations and conclusion made by\nCIT(A) and accordingly do not find any reason to interfere with the order of\nCIT(A). Consequently, we uphold the same

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. In this regard, Ld. AR relied upon Chiripal Poly Films Ltd. 104 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai ITAT). Ld. AR also contended that it was a mutual decision between assessee and “A” & “J” to receive/pay premium, how the AO is concerned with their mutual decision? Ld. AR relied upon decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Chain House

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 3, Balbir Chand Maini Vs CIT [2011J 12 taxmann.com 276 (Punjab & Haryana) / [2011] 201 Taxman 94 (Punjab & Haryana (MAG.) / [2012] 340 ITR 161 (Punjab & Haryana) / [2012] 247 CTR 468 (Punjab & Haryana) Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments Assessment year 1998-99 During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer found that assessee had purchased certain shares

PRAYANK JAIN,INDORE vs. ACIT5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 without considering the fact of the case by relying on certain decision, the fact of which are different from the case of the appellant, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.28,47,833/- based on the enquiry of the investigation wing

GOVIND HARINARAYAN AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 without considering the fact of the case by relying on certain decision, the fact of which are different from the case of the appellant, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.28,47,833/- based on the enquiry of the investigation wing

MANISH GOVIND AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 without considering the fact of the case by relying on certain decision, the fact of which are different from the case of the appellant, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.28,47,833/- based on the enquiry of the investigation wing

SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 without considering the fact of the case by relying on certain decision, the fact of which are different from the case of the appellant, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.28,47,833/- based on the enquiry of the investigation wing

DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 without considering the fact of the case by relying on certain decision, the fact of which are different from the case of the appellant, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.28,47,833/- based on the enquiry of the investigation wing

SAPAN SHAH,INDORE vs. ACIT-4(I), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 without considering the fact of the case by relying on certain decision, the fact of which are different from the case of the appellant, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.28,47,833/- based on the enquiry of the investigation wing

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 of the Act at Rs.2,76,42,000/- 1. Prior to the impugned year, assessee had given advances through banking channel to various parties for purchase of land. Assessee submits that as the advances were given through banking channel this itself proves the genuineness of the initiation of transaction. 2. Assessee contends that the funds transferred or given

DCIT-4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COM. PVT. LTD., TALOJA, RAIGARH

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 in the year under appeal................." 17. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition made by the Ld. AO observed as follows: “5.14 The appellant has submitted various documents in support of its claim. The said documents were verified by this office. After verification of the same, following facts emerge out which

YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY (P) LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN FROLIC REALTY (P) LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(1) , INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 in the year under appeal................." 17. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition made by the Ld. AO observed as follows: “5.14 The appellant has submitted various documents in support of its claim. The said documents were verified by this office. After verification of the same, following facts emerge out which

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

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

68,933.42\n2,771.500 GR\n82,47,092\n6-Nov\n2,771.500 GR\n82,47,092\n7-Nov\n1,000.000 GR\n30,12,180.00\n1,725.670 GR\n52,47,643.90\n2,045.830 GR\n60,88,749\n8-Nov\n648.907 GR\n19,66,227.87\n2,530.741 GR\n77,05,084.42\n163.996 GR\n4,88,158\n9-Nov\n163.996

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

47:1 1034 470 4,77,020 resident thus no PAN) new York USA 5.1 The AO asked the assesse to submit the citified valuation report determining fair market value of shares as on the date of conversion. The assessee submitted the value report wherein Chartered Accountant has determined fair market value of the shares at Rs.108/- per share consequently