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

54,71,970/- under Section 68 of the Act on account of credits entries from three parties, addition of Rs.1

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

54,71,970/- under Section 68 of the Act on account of credits entries from three parties, addition of Rs.1

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 Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of I. T. Act, 1961 is being initiated separately on this issue. Addition of Rs.2,00,54,089/-“ 7.1 Ld. AR has pointed out that since the order was passed on 16.12.2019 and assessee was not given sufficient time to produce the supporting evidence. We agree with this

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

54 taxrnann.com 10 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2015] 229 Taxman 173, Hon 'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that.- "where assessee could not explain receipt of alleged share transactions profits credited in his bank accounts, then sale proceeds had to be added as income 01 assessee under section 68

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

54 taxmann.com 10 (Punjab & Haryana) / [2015] 229 Taxman 173 Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana/-High Court held that where assessee could not explain receipt of alleged share transactions profits credited in his bank accounts, then sale proceeds had to be added as income of assessee under section 68

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 of the Act and, therefore, the first appellate order may kindly be upheld by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 10. On careful consideration of the above rival submissions, first of all, I note that the addition pertaining to ground No.1 of the Revenue has been deleted by the ld.CIT(A) with the following observations and findings

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

Appeals are dismissed

section 271.\"\nAdditional evidences are normally not allowed so as to bring finality to\nassessment proceedings. However, this cannot be at the cost of natural\njustice. Therefore, Rule 46A(1)(b) & 46A(1)(c) give opportunity to appellant to\nproduce additional evidences in cases where an appellant is prevented by\nsufficient cause from producing such evidences. The rule

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

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

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

Section 68 of\nthe Act. In view of the above deliberations and case laws relied upon by both the parties,\nwe find that the AO was not justified in making an addition of Rs.2,90,93,500/- u/s 68 of\nthe Act which has rightly been deleted the Id. CIT(A) and we concur with his findings.\nThus

SHRI SUKHRAM MUKATI,INDORE vs. THE ITO WD-3(3), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of Shri Sukhram Mukati and

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.409&410/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09

54 of the Act, that Section was in pari materia with Section 54F. The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gurnam Singh : (2010) 327 ITR 278/[2008] 170 Taxman 160 in which the same view was taken with reference to Section 54F was also noticed by this Court

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 is not sustainable. Considering the order of the ld.AO in the light of submissions made and details furnished by the assessee during the assessment and appellate proceedings, and considering similar issue raised in the Asst.Year2011-12 in the case of assessee, the ld.CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition and allowed the claim of the assessee. His finding

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 is not sustainable. Considering the order of the ld.AO in the light of submissions made and details furnished by the assessee during the assessment and appellate proceedings, and considering similar issue raised in the Asst.Year2011-12 in the case of assessee, the ld.CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition and allowed the claim of the assessee. His finding

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 is not sustainable. Considering the order of the ld.AO in the light of submissions made and details furnished by the assessee during the assessment and appellate proceedings, and considering similar issue raised in the Asst.Year2011-12 in the case of assessee, the ld.CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition and allowed the claim of the assessee. His finding

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act on account of share application money received from M/s SKS Ispat and Power Limited. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 20. Before us, the Ld. CIt-DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. AO. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the findings

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act on account of share application money received from M/s SKS Ispat and Power Limited. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 20. Before us, the Ld. CIt-DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. AO. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the findings

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act on account of share application money received from M/s SKS Ispat and Power Limited. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 20. Before us, the Ld. CIt-DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. AO. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the findings

INCME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SWARNA SUKH, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and \"impugned order” is upheld

section 115BBE for taxing the cash deposits would amount to double taxation of the same income twice, which is prohibited by law. Accordingly, the addition made by the assessing officer u/s 68 and taxed u/s 115BBE was not at all warranted, and, therefore, deserves to be deleted. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision