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

8. We have considered the judgment relied upon by the Ld. AR passed by the Hon’ble Delhi Bench in the case of Neha Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No. 3711/Del/2010. On the identical situation the Hon’ble Bench was pleased to observe as follows: “19. The Learned CIT(Appeals) after examining the facts of the case, held

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

8. Firstly, how the ld PCIT has arrived at a conclusive finding that the discrepancies found, confronted and accepted by the assessee during the course of survey attract the deeming provisions of section 68

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

8. Firstly, how the ld PCIT has arrived at a conclusive finding that the discrepancies found, confronted and accepted by the assessee during the course of survey attract the deeming provisions of section 68

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of 30% is clear. The amendment in section 115BBE(2) w.e.f. 01.04.2017 is only clarificatory and to avoid litigation. The income surrendered by the appellant during the course of the search has the character of items included in section

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)

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D i.e. from residuary category w.e.f 01.04.2017. However, in the present case in hand, additional income was offered during search & survey and the same has been taken into consideration while filing regular return, of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. The assessment was completed at returned income and no fresh addition was made

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 of the Act on the ground that that huge outstanding balance of sundry creditors remained unpaid for the period of more than three years and that the appellant had failed to establish the need for which it had incurred such expenditure. 5. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties. We have also perused the relevant

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 in regard to the explanation rendered by the assessee about the nature of source of the sum so credited. The same is not visible in the case in hand. Whereas the Bank statement established the fact of making investment in stock market by the assessee, ITA No.983/Ind/2019 (Smt. Archana Chandokvs.ITO) Asst.Year.–2010-11- 8

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 69 and not u/s 68 of the Act of 1961. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, in our view

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

section 68 to arrive at a proper conclusion in the matter. Having observed so, we now turn back to the assessment-order and reproduce below, which we have earlier too repeated, the submission made by assessee to Ld. AO: “7. With reference to your query regarding Shri Nilesh Jain, it is submitted that we have already given

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, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year the same may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing

THE ITO 2 (1) INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S HI LINK CITY HOMES 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 City Homes Indore Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 06, Sadhna Nagar, Vs. Airport Road, Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aacch5920K 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

68 and the Ld. CIT(A) was Page 5 of 14 M/s Hi Link City Homes P. Ltd. Assessment year 2012-13 justified in deleting the addition made by Ld. AO. We, therefore, uphold the action of Ld. CIT(A). With, this Ground No. 2 and 3 of the revenue are dismissed. Ground No. 4: 10. During assessment-proceeding

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

68 of the Act. 8 8. Regarding addition of Rs.11670.50 lakhs, the ld. AR submitted that all the companies who had given unsecured loans had filed income-tax returns, therefore, the identity was proved beyond doubt and from the copies of the bank statements and audited accounts placed on record, genuineness of the transaction and credit worthiness of the lender

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

section 68 is not applicable in the present facts of the case and the AO without discussing in detail has made addition u/s. 68 which is not proper. Therefore the addition is deleted. 8

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

8. In these grounds, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 66,91,70,000/- made by AO and upheld by CIT(A) on account of unexplained share capital u/s 68. 9. During assessment-proceeding, when the AO show-caused assessee to explain the justification of issuance of shares having face value of Rs. 10/- at a premium

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

8 of 21 Shri Rupesh Vyas Assessment year 2014-15 sum found credited in the books" in 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 are not applicable because the credit which is appearing in the impugned year is as a result of debit transaction which originated in F.Y. 2006-07. This indicates that the credit entry in impugned year is a result of debit entry in earlier year which has been accepted. 8

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.

Section 68: Cash credits -Share application money - No addition shall be made in the hands of the assessee where transaction related to the receipt of share application money are genuine and are fully recorded by the share applicants. 7 x) HONORABLE AHMEDABAD, IT AT TRIBUNAL (A) In The Case of ITO vs. APEX THERM PACKAGING PVT. LTD. When full

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. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT (A) erred in restricting the amount of Agricultural income of Rs. 5,00,000/- as against Agricultural income of Rs. 8