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. 8,14,000/- as declared by the assessee in his return of total income

THE DCIT,1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. RITSPIN SYNTHETICS LTD., PITHAMPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms indicated above, and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 at a higher rate as per amended Sec. 115BBE even when amended provision received Assent from President w.e.f. 15- 12-16 only. 4. The assessee reserves its right to add alter and modify any of the cross objections taken by it.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a company engaged in the business

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

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

section 199C of the Finance Act, 2016 disclosing income of Rs.\n5,00,000/- under Prime Minister Garib Kalyan Yojna Rules 2016. He paid tax of Rs.\n2,49,500/- on 29-03-2017 and deposited Rs.1,25,000/- with UCO Bank as per the scheme.\nThus, addition to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- on account

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

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

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

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 143(3) of the Act on the allegation that cash was deposited during the demonetization period and the return of income was not filed within the prescribed time for A.Y. 2017-18. 4. That vide Re-assessment order dated 22.08.2021, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 28,07,500/- on account of cash deposits during

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

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

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,732/- 18 3. Shri Utpal Goyal 1,31,868/- 18 4. Shri Narendra Barta 8,58,336/- 16 Total 45,65,847/- 5. According to the Ld. AO, such excess interest to the persons covered under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act was not available in terms of the provisions of the said Section and thus

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,732/- 18 3. Shri Utpal Goyal 1,31,868/- 18 4. Shri Narendra Barta 8,58,336/- 16 Total 45,65,847/- 5. According to the Ld. AO, such excess interest to the persons covered under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act was not available in terms of the provisions of the said Section and thus

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,732/- 18 3. Shri Utpal Goyal 1,31,868/- 18 4. Shri Narendra Barta 8,58,336/- 16 Total 45,65,847/- 5. According to the Ld. AO, such excess interest to the persons covered under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act was not available in terms of the provisions of the said Section and thus

THE ACIT (CENTRAL), UJJAIN vs. M/S. DIGIANA PROJECTS (P) LTD., INDORE

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes as mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Acit (Central), M/S. Digiana Ujjain Projects Private Limited, बनाम/ M-3, Sapna Chamber, 12/1, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aadcd5465A Assessee By Shri Sudhir Padliya, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2023

section 68 but the assessee did not file any reply. Hence, the AO rightly found that the assessee had failed to furnish required details/evidences to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of transactions and accordingly made addition of Rs. 6,92

SHRI RADHESHYAM PATEL,INDORE vs. THE ITO- 2(3), INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Radheshyam Patel, Ito, Prop. Of M/S. Geetanjali Ward 2(3), बनाम/ & Cold Storage, Indore Bicholi Mardana, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abppp3172N Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, C.A. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2023

section 68 to which the Ld. AR could not give any satisfactory reply. We are not influenced by this fancy argument of assessee. Rejected accordingly. 15. As far as the decision of ITAT, Indore in Shri Om Prakash Patidar (supra) is concerned, the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench has held “However, Ld. CIT(A) has admitted the factum

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

section 263 is not permitted to substitute his estimate of income in place of the income estimated by the Assessing Officer. (vii) The Assessing Officer exercises quasi-judicial power vested in him and if he exercises such power in accordance with law and arrive at a conclusion, such conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the Commissioner

PRATAP BAJAJ,INDORE vs. ITO-4(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) namely Smt

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2014-15

Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de-mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels.” The above noted factors

MANORAMA DEVI SHARMA,INDORE vs. ITO-3(1), INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) namely Smt

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2014-15

Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de-mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels.” The above noted factors

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL vs. SH. PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA, BHOPAL

In the result the “impugned order” is sustained on the first

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit, Prakash Chandra, बनाम/ Bhopal 16/244, Kings Vs. Shopping Centre, Mp Nagar, Zone-I, Bhopal-462011 Madhya Pradesh (Pan:Aappg5194E)

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal as & by way of an Appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060659730(1) dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein after referred