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

73,734/-, however, the value of gold as per books of accounts of the assessee was at 19,423.678 gms valued at Rs. 4,25,98,165/-. Therefore, a difference in stock of 6433.812 gms was found amounting to Rs. 1,41,75,569/-. Statement of Shri Anoop Nema was recorded on oath on 16.12.2016, wherein, he has accepted value

GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

68,34,975/- related to assessment year 2015-16 and Rs.7,31,65,025/- related to assessment-year 2016-17. Ld. AR argued that the factual matrix of the surrender and assessment of both components is same and there is no difference whatsoever. Ld. AR further carried our attention to the Page No. 66 of the Paper- Book where

SMT. ARCHANA CHANDAK,INDORE vs. ITO 3(2), INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal isallowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked in the very first place, the question of any additions u/s. 68 of the Act does not arises. Thus, in view of the above, the entire addition of Ks. 27,57,710/- u/s. 68 of the Act is liable to be deleted. Reliance in this regard is placed

SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

68,34,975/- stating that the appellant surrendered such undisclosed income during the course of search. A.7] The appellant thereafter preferred an appeal before the Ld CIT (A)-3, Bhopal against the penalty order as passed under section 271AAB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and took the following grounds of appeal: 1] That on the facts

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

1) Indore the loan transactions from this company were investigated and the statements of the directors were also recorded in which they have admitted about the bogus nature of transactions. This also clearly shows that the credit entries from this company are also not above board. In this case also I have written a letter to Pr. DIT, Investigation , Surat

THE DCIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. KALYAN TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

68. However, the addition on account of share capital received was made after reducing there from, the income already offered by the respondent on account of peak credit as discussed in Para 12.9 of the assessment order. Penalty proceedings in respect of the addition so made by the AO were initiated in Para 12.10 of the assessment order. Copy

THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE vs. M/S KETI CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) LTD. , INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

68. However, the addition on account of share capital received was made after reducing there from, the income already offered by the respondent on account of peak credit as discussed in Para 12.9 of the assessment order. Penalty proceedings in respect of the addition so made by the AO were initiated in Para 12.10 of the assessment order. Copy

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

73,29,500 1,50,42,806 Agency P Ltd 21 Vishnupriya AAACV8829P 46,48,500 38,92,620 Prop. P Ltd. 22 Zenith Goods AAACZ0908P 1,43,87,250 2,00,27,787 & Services PL 23 Concert AABCC9445K 1,40,70,000 9,99,93,410 Tradelink P 39 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

73,29,500 1,50,42,806 Agency P Ltd 21 Vishnupriya AAACV8829P 46,48,500 38,92,620 Prop. P Ltd. 22 Zenith Goods AAACZ0908P 1,43,87,250 2,00,27,787 & Services PL 23 Concert AABCC9445K 1,40,70,000 9,99,93,410 Tradelink P 39 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

73,29,500 1,50,42,806 Agency P Ltd 21 Vishnupriya AAACV8829P 46,48,500 38,92,620 Prop. P Ltd. 22 Zenith Goods AAACZ0908P 1,43,87,250 2,00,27,787 & Services PL 23 Concert AABCC9445K 1,40,70,000 9,99,93,410 Tradelink P 39 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others

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

73,400/- by Ld. A.O. after disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act at Rs.4,26,000/- , addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of bogus cash credit introduced in the books of account at Rs.2,76,42,000/- and addition of bogus creditors at Rs.83,05,400/- . Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and succeeded

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

73,844/-, we observe that the assessee filed the original return on 28.3.2013 and revised return on 18.3.2015. In the revised return the correct claim of interest expenditure was made. Though the original return was belated but still in the given case where the assessee has ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari revised the return before the case

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

73,844/-, we observe that the assessee filed the original return on 28.3.2013 and revised return on 18.3.2015. In the revised return the correct claim of interest expenditure was made. Though the original return was belated but still in the given case where the assessee has ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari revised the return before the case

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

73,844/-, we observe that the assessee filed the original return on 28.3.2013 and revised return on 18.3.2015. In the revised return the correct claim of interest expenditure was made. Though the original return was belated but still in the given case where the assessee has ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari revised the return before the case

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

68 of the Income tax Act, 1961. As the assessee has deliberately and willfully concealed its unaccounted income, and furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are initiated for concealment and furnishing the inaccurate particulars also initiated. Addition: Rs. 90,69,199/- Page 10 of 26 Shri Rupesh Vyas Assessment year

SRIYANS KUMAR JAIN HUF,BERASIA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2019-20 Sriyans Kumar Jain Huf, Pcit (Central), Prop. Of M/S Siryans Bhopal Kumar Akshay Kumar Jain, बनाम/ Main Road, Vs. Berasia

73,000/- including the surrendered income of Rs. 33,86,608/- offered during survey. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment. While completing assessment, the AO accepted returned income of assessee but, however, taxed the surrendered income of Rs. 33,86,608/- as per higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE. 3. Subsequently, Ld. PCIT examined the record

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

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 of the Act, viz. identity of “A” & “J”, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of “A” & “J”, have been duly established by furnishing a large number of statutory and non-statutory documents. In Para 5.2 of appeal-order, the CIT(A) has already accepted the satisfaction of first two ingredients i.e. the identity of “A” & “J” and genuineness