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

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

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

section 68 merely because the creditors have not been paid in full is legally unjustified. 9.7 Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. S.C. Ghosal ([1977] 106 ITR 980), based on evidences such as existence of creditors, assessment file number of creditors and the confirmation received from the creditor, upheld the order of the Tribunal

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

90,69,199/- is added under section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961. As the assessee has deliberately

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. Accordingly, we of the considered opinion that there was no justification for making addition to the total income of the assessee on account of capital introduced by its partners since the assessee duly justified the identity and creditworthiness of the partners as well as genuineness of the transactions as entered into with them

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

Section 68 of the Act. Thus, the assessees cannot be permitted to contend that the assessments were based on surmises and conjectures or presumptions or assumptions. The assessee does not and cannot dispute the fact that the shares of the companies which they have dealt with were insignificant in value prior to their trading. If such is the situation

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

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

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

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

90 taxmann.com 189 (Jaipur - Trib.) Dilip Kumar Roy v. ITO, Ward-1, Nadia - [2016] 68 taxmann.com 129 (Kolkata - Trib.) Sanjay Lunawat ITA No.396/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.32/Ind/2018 New Alignment v. ITO, Ward-51(4), Kolkata - [2016] 69 taxmann.com 122 (Kolkata - Trib.) Punjab Goods Transport (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, Ward-12(3), Kolkata - [2017] 77 taxmann.com 37 (Kolkata - Trib.) Brijgopal Madhusudan Bhattad

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

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

90,93,500/- made by\nthe AO by applying the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, it is noted

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 are not applicable. Further, the appellant cannot be questioned on receipt of cash as there is no limitation on amount being received in cash on account of return of business advance given earlier. 9. Reliance is placed on following judicial precedence’s – a. Hon’ble Hyderabad Bench of ITAT in the case of SB Steel Industries

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 of the IT Act, were deleted. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below for your ready reference: “On perusing the records, it appears that the finding that the assessee was rerouting its own funds was based on surmise. The CIT (A) had the benefit of considering the balance sheet of the lender as well

AVIRAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

68 Audited Financials 71 ITR 90 5 Success Vyapar Ltd. 91 Confirmation of account 92 Aviral Industries Ltd. ledger account in books of success Vyapar Ltd. Audited Financial 93 ITR 110 6 Vasundhara Capital and Securities ltd. 8 Aviral Industries Confirmation of accounts 111 Audited of accounts 113 Audited financials 134 ITR 7 Kavita Agrawal Bank statement

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 of the Act, which the Revenue has taken in the following manner: Century 21 Malls P.Ltd Vs. ACIT (Indore Bench) – (9 Cross-Appeals) 24 “2. Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,17,80,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the IT Act whereas credit worthiness of the creditors

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 of the Act, which the Revenue has taken in the following manner: Century 21 Malls P.Ltd Vs. ACIT (Indore Bench) – (9 Cross-Appeals) 24 “2. Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,17,80,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the IT Act whereas credit worthiness of the creditors

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 of the Act, which the Revenue has taken in the following manner: Century 21 Malls P.Ltd Vs. ACIT (Indore Bench) – (9 Cross-Appeals) 24 “2. Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,17,80,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the IT Act whereas credit worthiness of the creditors

SHRI OM PRAKASH PATIDAR (HUF),INDORE vs. THE ITO 2(4), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

90,602/- and unexplained credit in bank account of Rs.17,51,000/-. Hence, the A.O. after giving deduction under Chapter 16A assessed income at Rs.97,40,840/-. 2 [ITA No.220/Ind/2017] [Shri Om Prakash Patidar (HUF), Indore] The assessing officer also computed agricultural income at Rs.3,00,000/- against the agricultural income claimed at Rs.4,50,200/-. 3. Aggrieved by this

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

68 of the Act is a must. The “impugned order” of Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and bad in law. It is erroneously held that sales done by the assessee are all genuine and so also purchases. The Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly allowed the appeal of the assessee, as there is no material on record in support

JASTEJ GOROWARA,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

90,00,000/- under section 68, the CIT(Appeals) observed that the Assessing Officer had examined the issue in detail