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

Appeals are dismissed

81,33,897/- which is\nshown by the assessee under the head of 'Sundry Creditors' stands\nunexplained and it is considered as 'unexplained credit or 'unexplained\nliability' within the meaning of section 68

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

Appeals are dismissed

81,33,897/- which is\nshown by the assessee under the head of 'Sundry Creditors' stands\nunexplained and it is considered as 'unexplained credit or 'unexplained\nliability' within the meaning of section 68

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

81,00,000/ Financial Advisors P - Ltd (AABCJ9501B) Total 66,91,70,000/ - The report of Investigation Wing was based on a survey action u/s 133A carried out in the case of one ‘Shri Anand Sharma, Kolkata’ (entry operator) on 02.07.2013 pursuant to which the statements of Shri Anand Sharma were recorded on 02.07.2013/06.02.2014. The AO observed that Shri

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 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 order

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 of the I.T. 21 Sunderdeep Construction Pvt. Ltd Act does not come into play. No material was brought by the Ld. A.O to prove that the money was the assessee’s own undisclosed income” (emphasis supplied). 16. As regards the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd (supra) relied

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 (1), INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. (M.P), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the revenue stands

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14 Dcit-2(1), M/S. Dthri Health Care Indore Vs. Pvt. Ltd (M.P), Pu-4, Scheme No.54, Near A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aabcd4095N Revenue By Shri R.P. Mourya, Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri Sumit Neema, Sr.Adv & Gagan Tiwari, Adv Date Of Hearing 17.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2019 O R D E R

section 147/148. During the course of reassessment proceedings Learned Assessing Officer (In short ‘Ld. A.O’) observed that as against the admitted undisclosed income of Rs.4,41,88,232/- the assessee has only declared income of Rs.2,11,29,807/- and the reasons for less disclosure was sought from the assessee. It was submitted before the Ld. Assessing Officer that

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\nhas no application when cash is received on account of sales consideration. He\nfurther states that since trading results have been accepted then purchases and sales\ncannot be added u/s 68 as held in the case of CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain [2006]\nreported 250 CTR 444. He further pointed out that cash balance of the assessee

SHRI SHYAMLAL GOYAL,SENDHWA vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL,CIRCLE -2, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 247/Ind/2021 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

68,555/- को "प"ट करने म" असमथ" हूँ । इसके साथ ह" म" इस रा"श को म" चालू "व"त वष" क" अघो"षत आय मानते हुए करारोपण हेतु सम"प"त करता हूँ । इस पर देय कर का भुगतान अ""म कर के "प म" समय पर भुगतान करने का वचन देता हूँ । “ However, we find that

SHRI AASHISH MANGAL,BARWANI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 247/Ind/2021 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

68,555/- को "प"ट करने म" असमथ" हूँ । इसके साथ ह" म" इस रा"श को म" चालू "व"त वष" क" अघो"षत आय मानते हुए करारोपण हेतु सम"प"त करता हूँ । इस पर देय कर का भुगतान अ""म कर के "प म" समय पर भुगतान करने का वचन देता हूँ । “ However, we find that

SHRI LOKESH MANGAL,BARWANI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL,CIRCLE-2, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 247/Ind/2021 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

68,555/- को "प"ट करने म" असमथ" हूँ । इसके साथ ह" म" इस रा"श को म" चालू "व"त वष" क" अघो"षत आय मानते हुए करारोपण हेतु सम"प"त करता हूँ । इस पर देय कर का भुगतान अ""म कर के "प म" समय पर भुगतान करने का वचन देता हूँ । “ However, we find that

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

section 68 does not permit any addition qua the opening balances which are carried forward from earlier year and not accepted during the year. Ld. CIT(A) has rightly taken into account the decision of (i) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Usha Stud Farms (301 ITR 384), (ii) Shri Vardhman Overseas Page

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

section 68 sustaining/enhancing by observing that excess expenditure on the amount account of cost of Century 21 Malls P.Ltd Vs. ACIT (Indore Bench) – (9 Cross-Appeals) 29 belongs to Shri construction Keshav Nanchani determined by the DVO. 2009-10 Rs.20,04,41,842/- 7,03,97,955 Rs.1,99,42,216/- to Rs.2,60,39,729/- 2010-11 Rs.14

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

section 68 sustaining/enhancing by observing that excess expenditure on the amount account of cost of Century 21 Malls P.Ltd Vs. ACIT (Indore Bench) – (9 Cross-Appeals) 29 belongs to Shri construction Keshav Nanchani determined by the DVO. 2009-10 Rs.20,04,41,842/- 7,03,97,955 Rs.1,99,42,216/- to Rs.2,60,39,729/- 2010-11 Rs.14

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

section 68 sustaining/enhancing by observing that excess expenditure on the amount account of cost of Century 21 Malls P.Ltd Vs. ACIT (Indore Bench) – (9 Cross-Appeals) 29 belongs to Shri construction Keshav Nanchani determined by the DVO. 2009-10 Rs.20,04,41,842/- 7,03,97,955 Rs.1,99,42,216/- to Rs.2,60,39,729/- 2010-11 Rs.14

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act on account of share application money received from M/s SKS Ispat and Power Limited. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 20. Before us, the Ld. CIt-DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. AO. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the findings

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act on account of share application money received from M/s SKS Ispat and Power Limited. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 20. Before us, the Ld. CIt-DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. AO. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the findings

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act on account of share application money received from M/s SKS Ispat and Power Limited. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 20. Before us, the Ld. CIt-DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. AO. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the findings