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

6 2011-12 5-10-2016 against order under section 143(3) of the Act 7 2012-13 12-12-2016 against order under section 143(3) of the Act 8 2013-14 4-01-2017 against order under section 143(3) of the Act 9 2014-15 1-02-2018 against order under section

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

6 2011-12 5-10-2016 against order under section 143(3) of the Act 7 2012-13 12-12-2016 against order under section 143(3) of the Act 8 2013-14 4-01-2017 against order under section 143(3) of the Act 9 2014-15 1-02-2018 against order under section

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘A.Y.’) 2011-12 with the following grounds: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘A.Y.’) 2011-12 with the following grounds: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘A.Y.’) 2011-12 with the following grounds: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

M/S SUPREMO INDIA LTD ,INDORE vs. THE AIT CENTRAL 3, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

3. DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma in ITANo.185/Ind/2020, ITAT, Indore 4.DCIT vs. M/s. Punjab Retail Pvt. Ltd. ITANo.677/Ind/2019 ITAT, Indore 5.Gandhir Ram vs. Pr. CIT ITANo.121/Chd/2021, ITAT, Chandigarh 6. ACIT vs. M/s Signature Builders IT(SS) ANo.184 to 186/Ind/2018, ITAT, Indore 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the assessee itself has declared the excess stock

THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

3)(4) v/s M/s. Sugar chem AY 2011-12 ITA No. 2071/Mum/2016, held that if the assessee complies with the provisions of Section 194C (6) of the Act disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act does not arise just because there is violation of provisions of Section 194C (7) of the Act. It was also

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

3)(4) v/s M/s. Sugar chem AY 2011-12 ITA No. 2071/Mum/2016, held that if the assessee complies with the provisions of Section 194C (6) of the Act disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act does not arise just because there is violation of provisions of Section 194C (7) of the Act. It was also

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

3)(4) v/s M/s. Sugar chem AY 2011-12 ITA No. 2071/Mum/2016, held that if the assessee complies with the provisions of Section 194C (6) of the Act disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act does not arise just because there is violation of provisions of Section 194C (7) of the Act. It was also

ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN vs. A ONE ENCLAVE, UJJAIN

In the result, grounds taken by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1(1), V/S M/S. A One Enclave, Ujjain 3687/1, Hariphatak Road, Ujjain

68, section section 69B, section 69C or 69, section 69A, section 69B, Section 69D at the rate of section 69C or Section 69D, if thirty percent; and such income is not covered (b) the amount of income tax under clause a), the income tax with which the assessee payable shall

M/S NIKHIL ESTATE P LTD,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE (3) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Nikhil Estate Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Central)-3 M-102, Mezzanine, Floor, Indore Dhan Trident, P. No.B-3 Pu- Vs. 4, Sch. No.54, Vijay Nagar Square, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 8056 D Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.06.2023

3). DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma in ITANo.185/Ind/2020, ITAT, Indore (4).DCIT vs. M/s. Punjab Retail Pvt. Ltd. ITANo.677/Ind/2019 ITAT, Indore (5).Gandhir Ram vs. Pr. CIT ITANo.121/Chd/2021, ITAT, Chandigarh (6). ACIT vs. M/s Signature Builders IT(SS) ANo.184 to 186/Ind/2018, ITAT, Indore 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that even if the assesse has recorded

ACIT 5 (1), BHOPAL vs. M/S VINDHYA SOLVENT PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 does not pertain to the AY 2014-15 but to earlier years and therefore, the same cannot be added to the total income for AY 2014-15.” 19. We further note that Section 68 of the Act is not applicable to the liabilities representing old opening balances, neither justified only for the reason that the creditors were

DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE vs. PUNJAB RETAIL (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

3 of the assessment order. The assessing officer then compared the said valuation with the cost of jewellery as per books of accounts as on the date of search which came to Rs. 81,85,90,485/- as provided on Page No. 5 of the assessment order. Difference of these two figures i.e. market value of jewellery found

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

68 of the I.T. Act in respect of unsecured loan from various persons, even though their creditworthiness was not proved. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, , Ld. CIT (A) is justified in deleting the additions of Rs. 10,18.500/- on account or disallowances or interest on property claimed by the Sanjay Lunawat ITA No.396/Ind/2018

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

6):- “3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Section 68 of the Act of 1961 says that

M/S PUMARTH PROPERTIES & HOLDING (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

3. Aggrieved by this the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the submissions affirm the view of the AO. Now the assessee is in further appeal. 4. The only effective ground in this appeal is declining the claim of set off against the additional income offered by the assessee. The Ld. counsel

DCIT,CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI KRIHNA KUMAR VERMA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI (Accountant Member)

3. The Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (“Sr. DR” for short) supporting the action of the Assessing Officer (“AO” for short) on the issue of chargeability of tax u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not justified in law allowing

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

68 of the IT Act whereas credit worthiness of the creditors was not proved either at the time of assessment or at the time of appellate proceedings. 3. Ld. CIT (A) erred is not considering the fact that financials of most of the creditors is question are having no capital, no funds and no income to provide funds