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

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

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

83,540/- on 29.09.2012. Case selected for scrutiny followed by serving of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Assessment u/s 143(3) was completed at Rs.3,63,73,400/- 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

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

section 68 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act by treating the cash as\nunexplained money of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC is\nbeing initiated separately on this issue.\n5.\nDuring first-appeal, the assessee made a detailed submission to CIT(A).\nThe assessee also filed additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A of Income-\ntax Rules, 1962 with a justification

PRAYANK JAIN,INDORE vs. ACIT5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

MANISH GOVIND AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

SAPAN SHAH,INDORE vs. ACIT-4(I), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

GOVIND HARINARAYAN AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

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

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

68 and made addition with this conclusion: “In\nprocess of finalisation of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to\nfurnish the explanation of the sources of said cash deposits alongwith\ncollaborative supporting document. The assessee failed to furnish the\ncomplete details...... In absence of any concrete evidence and details of\nsources of cash deposits with supporting documents, the sources

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

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

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

68,34,975/- as accepted in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 did not fall within the definition of ‘undisclosed income’ as provided in Explanation to section 271AAB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961; hence, there arises no question of levy of penalty of Rs. 6,83

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

section 68 in favour of the assessee, where the applicant companies had substantial means to invest in company issuing shares. In the instant case, RCSPL, which has advanced money pursuant to a JV agreement had substantial means to give an advance to the Appellant company. The relevant part of the judgment in the case of Goodview Trading (P.) Limited

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D to the extent such income has been included by the assessee in the return of income furnished under section 139 and the tax in accordance with the provisions of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 115BBE has been

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D to the extent such income has been included by the assessee in the return of income furnished under section 139 and the tax in accordance with the provisions of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 115BBE has been

KUSUM YADAV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

83,693/- made by the AO as alleged short term capital\ngain. That the land being rural agricultural land was not a'\ncapital asset as per provision of Section 2(14)(iii). The addition\nmade, therefore may very kindly be deleted.\n4\nThat the learned CIT(A] erred in maintaining addition\nRs.20,00,000/- made u/s 68

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