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

75,79,091/- . The valuation as calculated by the Departmental valuation officer in his report was of Rs. 1,06,03,64,733/- and accordingly the difference in the valuation of stock calculated comes to Rs.6,27,85,642/- only as against additional income of Rs 10,14,95,122/- was offered for tax by the appellant. The same

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

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D i.e. from residuary category w.e.f 01.04.2017. Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of CIT vs Vatika Township Pvt Ltd (2014) 24 ITJ 532 (SC): (2014) 271 CTR 1: (2014) 227 Taxmann 121 has held that “An amendment made to the taxing statute can be said to be intended to remove

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

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D i.e. from residuary category w.e.f 01.04.2017. Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of CIT vs Vatika Township Pvt Ltd (2014) 24 ITJ 532 (SC): (2014) 271 CTR 1: (2014) 227 Taxmann 121 has held that “An amendment made to the taxing statute can be said to be intended to remove

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 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 28.12.2017 as the assessee did not submit any documentary evidence in respect of the source of cash deposits and the declaration signed by the parents of the assessee stating the fact of gifting Rs.5 Lakhs each to their daughters, being the assessee herein since doubted. The same was, in turn

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 68 of the Act. Thus, the assessees cannot be permitted to contend that the assessments were based on surmises and conjectures or presumptions or assumptions. The assessee does not and cannot dispute the fact that the shares of the companies which they have dealt with were insignificant in value prior to their trading. If such is the situation

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

75,00,000 6. During assessment-proceeding, Ld. AO treated the lenders as paper companies and the loans taken by assessee therefrom as mere accommodation-entries and, therefore, assessed the loans as undisclosed income of assessee u/s 68 of the act. During appellate-proceeding before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee made a detailed submission with documentary evidences to prove that

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

Section 68 of the Act. Thus, the assessees cannot be permitted to contend that the assessments were based on surmises and conjectures or presumptions or assumptions. The assessee does not and cannot dispute the fact that the shares of the companies which they have dealt with were insignificant in value prior to their trading. If such is the situation

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

Appeals are dismissed

section 68 of the 1.T. Act.\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in\nadmitting additional evidences at the time of appeal ignoring the fact that it\ndoes not fulfil the conditions laid down in Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962\nas sufficient opportunities were provided to the assessee during

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

Appeals are dismissed

section 68 of the 1.T. Act.\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in\nadmitting additional evidences at the time of appeal ignoring the fact that it\ndoes not fulfil the conditions laid down in Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962\nas sufficient opportunities were provided to the assessee during

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 was not justified and was 27 Sanjay Lunawat ITA No.396/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.32/Ind/2018 rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A) as the assessee filed requisite documentary evidences so as to justify the identity and creditworthiness of these parties and genuineness of the transactions as entered into with them. Thus, we confirm

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 are not applicable. Further, the appellant cannot be questioned on receipt of cash as there is no limitation on amount being received in cash on account of return of business advance given earlier. 9. Reliance is placed on following judicial precedence’s – a. Hon’ble Hyderabad Bench of ITAT in the case of SB Steel Industries

KUNAL VYAS,INDORE vs. ITO 4(1), IND, MAIN BUILDING, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 of the Act and ₹7,75,000/- under section 69 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment

ACIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. SANJAY LADDHA, INDORE

section 68 r.w.s.115BBE of\nthe Act by treating the cash as unexplained money of the assessee.\n2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)\nerred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,21,80,200/- on the basis of additional\nevidences ignoring the facts that the conditions laid down

VIRENDRA KUMAR MANDOT,, SADAR BAZAR SAILANA RATLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO-1, RATLAM, RATLAM

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

68 of the Act. The contention\nof the appellant in raising these grounds is that the AO has not considered\ncash sales which have been taken in the P&L account and the addition made\nby the AO has resulted in double addition.\n8.1 There have been lot of judicial pronouncements on the issue of cash\ndeposits during demonetization period

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

ITO 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S AMKAY COLONISERS & BUILDERS P LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ito 1(1) M/S. Amkay Colonisers & Bhopal Builders Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 16, Amar Stambh, Z-1, M.P. Nagar Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue ) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaeca 6272 F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.12.2022

68. 8. During assessment-proceeding, Ld. AO observed that the assessee had shown a short-term borrowing of Rs. 3,75,00,000/-. When the Ld. AO /confronted the assessee about the nature and source of this borrowing, the assessee submitted that it had received an advance / security deposit from M/s Rajat Consumers and Services Private Limited [“RCSPL”] under

NEMICHAND JAIN HUF,BERASIA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year: 2019-20 Nemichand Jain Huf Pcit (Central), Prop. M/S. Mahavir Bhopal बनाम/ Jewellers. Near Bus Stand Vs. Berasia (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aachn1847E Assessee By Shri Govind Rinwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2025

75,950/- including the surrendered income of Rs. 65,66,144/- 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. 65,66,144/- as per higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE. 3. Subsequently, Ld. PCIT examined the record

ITO 1(3), AYKAR BHAWAN ANNEX, INDORE vs. M/S. FAIRDEAL ENGINEERING & BODY BUILDING CO. (P) LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

75,642/- so made by the AO in the appellant's income is hereby deleted, Accordingly, both the grounds of appeal are allowed. 7. Before us, Ld. DR dutifully supported the assessment-order and prayed to uphold the action of Ld. AO. But, on a careful consideration of the order of Ld. CIT(A) as reproduced above, we note that