ASIAN BUSINESS CONECTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT - 1(1) , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2015-16 M/S. Asian Business Dcit-1(1), Connections Private Ltd, Vs. Bhopal Fm-18, Man Sarovar Complex, 7No. Stop, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaica1206D

68,364/- under section 2(22) (e) of the Act without understanding the fact of the case and without appreciating that the amount payable to M/s Advantage overseas Pvt Ltd was taken for strategic investment purpose same was evident from agreement dated 12/10/2012 executed between both holding and its subsidiary company. 5. That CIT (A) erred in not proper

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.

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 issue. Ground No.2 2.1 This ground relates to addition of Rs. 17750000/- by alleging that

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

56,983/- (-) Rs.54,23,189/-) was disallowed. Ld. A.O also observed that there were huge cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee during the month of February and March. Assessee claimed that the surrendered income of Rs.7 crores which was invested in the form of hundi matured during the year and the money so received (Principal and Interest

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

56,983/- (-) Rs.54,23,189/-) was disallowed. Ld. A.O also observed that there were huge cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee during the month of February and March. Assessee claimed that the surrendered income of Rs.7 crores which was invested in the form of hundi matured during the year and the money so received (Principal and Interest

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

56,983/- (-) Rs.54,23,189/-) was disallowed. Ld. A.O also observed that there were huge cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee during the month of February and March. Assessee claimed that the surrendered income of Rs.7 crores which was invested in the form of hundi matured during the year and the money so received (Principal and Interest

SANWARIA INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 4(1), BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 Sanwaria Infrastructure Acit, 4(1) Ltd., Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aakcs 3471 J Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2022 O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

68,70,000/- and made addition of Rs. 18,82,500/- under the shelter of section 69C, but section 69C does not contain any provision to tax such difference. Therefore, the action of lower authorities is patently wrong. Ld. AR gainfully referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. M/s Nemichand

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 44AA if yes, list of book so prescribed the answer given against column 11(a) is list of books of accounts cash book, ledger, bank book, journals. In 11(b) the answer given is computerized cash book, bank book, ledger, journal. Against 11(c) answer given is list of books of accounts cash, ledger, bank book, journal

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)

56. Confirmation letter and bank statement of the gift payer was verified. It is seen that transfer of only Rs.10,00,000 is reflected in the bank statement of the payer out of total Rs.24,40,000. The appellant claims that balance amount was received as cash gift. However corresponding withdrawals are not reflected in the bank statement

NILIMA KOTHARI,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSTT. CENTRE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

x). At the time of the enactment of FA 2021, it can be safely assumed that the legislature was aware of the state of law, as it existed then, which included the provisions of Section 149, TOLA and the Notifications issued under TOLA. However, despite such a situation obtaining, no provision was made for the extension of time limits

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 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 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

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

X + IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “INDORE BENCH”, INDORE ] ] BEFORE SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.169&170/Ind/2016 WITH CROSS OBJECTION No.46 and 47/Ind/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09&2009-10 AND IT(SS)A.No.24/Ind/2017 Asst.Year : 2010-11 AND ITA No.25, 244, 309/Ind/2017& 441/Ind/2018 Asstt.Years

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

X + IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “INDORE BENCH”, INDORE ] ] BEFORE SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.169&170/Ind/2016 WITH CROSS OBJECTION No.46 and 47/Ind/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09&2009-10 AND IT(SS)A.No.24/Ind/2017 Asst.Year : 2010-11 AND ITA No.25, 244, 309/Ind/2017& 441/Ind/2018 Asstt.Years

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

X + IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “INDORE BENCH”, INDORE ] ] BEFORE SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.169&170/Ind/2016 WITH CROSS OBJECTION No.46 and 47/Ind/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09&2009-10 AND IT(SS)A.No.24/Ind/2017 Asst.Year : 2010-11 AND ITA No.25, 244, 309/Ind/2017& 441/Ind/2018 Asstt.Years

ACIT CENTTRAL -2 INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KALYAN TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, INDORE

Accordingly ground no. 2 of the cross objection stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit Central-2, M/S Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Indore Ltd., Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aacck1840M

2. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee M/s Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd. was incorporated on 03.07.2002 and is engaged in BOT contract and civil construction contract business during the year under consideration and is managed and controlled by Garg Family of Indore (Kalyan Group). The erstwhile flagship company of the group

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

68. This, as mentioned already, is the residuary entry and only such goods as cannot be brought under the various specific entries in the tariff should be attempted to be brought under the residuary conceivable process of reasoning be brought under any of the tariff items, resort cannot be had to the residuary item." Page 39 of 57 Prataap Snacks

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

68. This, as mentioned already, is the residuary entry and only such goods as cannot be brought under the various specific entries in the tariff should be attempted to be brought under the residuary conceivable process of reasoning be brought under any of the tariff items, resort cannot be had to the residuary item." Page 39 of 57 Prataap Snacks