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

85,00,000/- taken by assessee from M/s Jayant Securities and Finance Ltd. and M/s Kavya Shares and Securities Pvt. Ltd. do no warrant any addition u/s 68 and the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by Ld. AO. We, therefore, uphold the action of Ld. CIT(A). 8. Regarding loan

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

Appeals are dismissed

85,64,210/- (Rs.1,56,25,000/- + Rs.1,29,39,210/-) may be\nconsidered as unexplained credit or unexplained liability within the meaning\nof section 68

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

Appeals are dismissed

85,64,210/- (Rs.1,56,25,000/- + Rs.1,29,39,210/-) may be\nconsidered as unexplained credit or unexplained liability within the meaning\nof section 68

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

85,00,000/- and Rs. 1,07,51,000/- as made by the Assessing Officer on account of advance received against sale of land by invoking the provisions of section 68

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

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

68,975\n60,00,000\n6,85,939\n03-11-2016\n6,85,939\n29,51,009\n30,50,000\n5,86,948\n04-11-2016\n5,86,948\n31,16,936\n31,60,000\n5,13,884\n05-11-2016\n5,13,884\n16,85,625\n15,20,000\n7,09,509\n06-11-2016\n7,09,509\nSunday

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

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

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

section 68 the credits in the books of the assessee, which are ITA No.13 of 2021 and CO 50 of 2021 16 unexplained are deemed to be income of the assessee. Therefore, it has necessarily to follow that such income can be deemed as income only of the year in which such amount is actually received by the assessee

INCME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SWARNA SUKH, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and \"impugned order” is upheld

85,761/-.\n\n4.5 Total cash sales during the month of October 2016 & November 2016 aggregated to Rs.3,59,15,631/-. Since the assessee had declared Rs.20 lakhs under PMGKY the net cash sales during the demonetization was quantified as Rs.3,43,59,000/- and was added to the returned income u/s 68 of the Act.\n\n4.6 Section

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 14A was warranted, was a debatable fact. In any event, even if it were not debatable, the error by the Assessing Officer is not “unsustainable”. Possibly he could have taken another view; yet, that he did not do so, would not render his opinion an unsustainable one, warranting exercise of section 263.” 43. Hon’ble Gujarat High

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 14A was warranted, was a debatable fact. In any event, even if it were not debatable, the error by the Assessing Officer is not “unsustainable”. Possibly he could have taken another view; yet, that he did not do so, would not render his opinion an unsustainable one, warranting exercise of section 263.” 43. Hon’ble Gujarat High

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 14A was warranted, was a debatable fact. In any event, even if it were not debatable, the error by the Assessing Officer is not “unsustainable”. Possibly he could have taken another view; yet, that he did not do so, would not render his opinion an unsustainable one, warranting exercise of section 263.” 43. Hon’ble Gujarat High

DHARMEDDRA DOSHI,SANWER ROAD, INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), INDORE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, OPPOSITE WHITE CHURCH, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2017-18 Dharmendra Doshi, Ito, 147-B, Sector-F, 1(1), Sanwer Road Industrial Indore. बनाम/ Area, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Afspd7034G Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal & Shri Harsh Choukse, Ca Revenue By Shri Sanjeev H. Bhagat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2025

section 145(3). Considering the earlier years trend of average cash balance and facts of the case, only the cash of Rs 9,85,000/- deposited on the first instance i.e. 10.11.2016 (which is also almost equal to average cash balance normally seen) is treated as genuine and remaining amount i.e. Rs 32,67,500/- is treated as unexplained

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S MAYUR INDUSTRIES, FATEPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniit(Ss)A No.212/Ind/2021 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vs. Acit, Central-2, M/S. Mayur Industries, Indore Khandwa "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abefm 4664 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri P. K. Mishra, Cit.D.R. Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Assessee By : 19.12.2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2023 O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Bhopal (M.P.) (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Order Dated 30.12.2019 Passed By The Dcit (Central)-2, Indore (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘A.Y.’) 2018-19 With The Following Ground:

68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 even when the said addition of Rs. 2,59,28,791/- as made by the assessing officer on account of capital introduced by the partners was made without allowing set-off of capital withdrawn. SS 212 of 2021 5 Mayur Ind. 1.2] The assessing officer while passing the assessment order observed that

DHANWAN LEASING AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2 (2), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2010-11

section 68 of the Act. The ld.CIT-DR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has dealt with the issue elaborately in paras 4.2 to 4.2.5 which are unambiguous and clear, therefore, in view of the judicial pronouncements relied on by the ld.CIT(A), the addition made by the AO may kindly be confirmed. 7. Placing rejoinder to the above

HRJ INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. PCIT INDORE-1, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2018-19 Hrj International Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit 7/2 Indore Trade Centre, Indore South Tukoganj बनाम/ Nr. Nehru Statue Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aacch4574K Assessee By Shri Sudhir Padliya, Ar Revenue By Shri Anup Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2026

section 68 of the Act (as the persons to whom shares have been issued have not offered explanation) and accordingly, was liable to be added as unexplained cash credit of Rs. 7,85

SARITA BAGDI ,INDORE vs. THE ITO WARD-4(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2011-12

section 68 - On appeal, Tribunal deleted addition observing that DMAT account and contract note showed credit/details of share transactions; - Whether on facts, transactions in shares were rightly held to be genuine and addition made by Assessing Officer was rightly deleted - Held, yes From the above cited decisions in the favor of the assessee, it is clear that the assesee

CHANDRA SAHU,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(4), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

Section 68 of the Act and thus could not explain the source of credit of cheque of Rs.1,65,000/- and creditworthiness and genuineness of amount received from Shri Arun Kumar Tiwari at Rs.2,85