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

68. The word ‘valuable’ has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as follows: - “Valuable adjective. Worth a good price; having financial or market value.” 69. The word ‘valuable’ has been defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as follows: - The word ‘valuable’ has been defined as again an adjective. “worth a great deal of money. Very useful or important

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

78,145/- in form of excess stock, Rs. 52,86,831/-in form of sales and not recorded in its regular books of accounts and without supporting documentary evidences as detected at the time of survey u/s 133A is treated as deemed income u/s 69B/69A of the I.T.Act, 1961 and to be taxed as per provisions of secretion 115BBE

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

78,97,548/- instead the appellant paid Rs.98,45,00,000/- as loan and advances, without paying of its liability, reasons whereof since not ITA No.281/Ind/2018 (ACIT vs. M/s. Vindhya Solvent Pvt. Ltd.) A.Y.–2014-15 - 29 - explained the impugned addition under Section 68

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

Section 68 of the Act only gives a statutory recognition to the principle that cash credits which are not satisfactorily explained might be assessed as income. (See CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78

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

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 (kindly refer CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del) and DCIT vs. Sanwerwala Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 42 ITJ 298 (Trib. Indore). We submit that the respondent proved the source of the source besides the fact that all three lender companies had given unsecured loans had filed their Income tax return whereby identity

BHAGWAN SINGH GOUR RUNNING AASHIRWAD FUEL POINT,VILLAGE NEEMKHEDI POST RUNAHA vs. ITO- 4 (3) CV R JAYA KUMAR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF ITO

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

78,500/- sustained in the first appeal.” 5. Respectfully following the decision of ITAT Pune Bench in the case of M/s.Bhagur Urban Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., in ITA No.561/PUN/2022, it is held that addition made by AO under section 68

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

section 68 of the I. T. Act is not applicable; that rather, it was the assessee who was the creditor in the books of account of the two parties; that further, the assessee duly discharged its onus; that therefore, Ld. CIT(A) cannot at all to have erred in deleting the addition. We have heard the parties and perused

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

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

section 145 (3) of the Act is not at all legally justified, (CIT v. Pink City\nDeveloper [2017] 398/ITR 153, Rajasthan)\n15.\nMoreover, it is also seen that in the computation part of the order, the ld. AO\nhas considered the declared income of Rs.4,78,900/- as disclosed by the assessee in\nthe return of income, which

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

68,14,619/- whereas the DVO assessed the cost at Rs.4,01,45,455/-, and thus having a difference of Rs.33,30,846/-. The ld.AO had accordingly proposed an addition of Rs.33,30,846/- by issuance of notice. The assessee in his reply/objection dated 31.01.2013 objected to the DVO’s estimation by pointing out various defects, which

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

68,14,619/- whereas the DVO assessed the cost at Rs.4,01,45,455/-, and thus having a difference of Rs.33,30,846/-. The ld.AO had accordingly proposed an addition of Rs.33,30,846/- by issuance of notice. The assessee in his reply/objection dated 31.01.2013 objected to the DVO’s estimation by pointing out various defects, which

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

68,14,619/- whereas the DVO assessed the cost at Rs.4,01,45,455/-, and thus having a difference of Rs.33,30,846/-. The ld.AO had accordingly proposed an addition of Rs.33,30,846/- by issuance of notice. The assessee in his reply/objection dated 31.01.2013 objected to the DVO’s estimation by pointing out various defects, which

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

78 per share was decided on the basis of the certificate issued by a Chartered Accountant valuing the shares at FMV in accordance with the prescribed Rules i.e. Rule 11UA as is evident from the page 986 to 990 of the paper book. Further, we find that the entire share capital and premium added by the Ld. AO u/s 68

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 139 etc., or by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. In the present case, the question of making of a return is not in issue and the only question is with regard to the second portion of the proviso

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 139 etc., or by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. In the present case, the question of making of a return is not in issue and the only question is with regard to the second portion of the proviso

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 139 etc., or by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. In the present case, the question of making of a return is not in issue and the only question is with regard to the second portion of the proviso

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,732/- 18 3. Shri Utpal Goyal 1,31,868/- 18 4. Shri Narendra Barta 8,58,336/- 16 Total 45,65,847/- 5. According to the Ld. AO, such excess interest to the persons covered under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act was not available in terms of the provisions of the said Section and thus

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,732/- 18 3. Shri Utpal Goyal 1,31,868/- 18 4. Shri Narendra Barta 8,58,336/- 16 Total 45,65,847/- 5. According to the Ld. AO, such excess interest to the persons covered under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act was not available in terms of the provisions of the said Section and thus