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

96 taxmann.com 469 (SC) (ii).CIT Vs. Metachem Industries [2001] 116 Taxman 572 (M.P.) (iii).CIT Vs. Pankaj Dyestuff Industries in Income Tax Reference nNo. 241 of 1993 (Gujrat HC) (iv). Garima Polymers (P.) Ltd Vs. ACIT [2021] 131 taxmann.com 4 (Delhi-Trib.) (v).CITVs. M/s Kewal Krishnan & Partners, DB ITA No. 185/08 (Rajasthan HC) (vi). ACIT Vs. M/s Mayur

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

Appeals are dismissed

section 68 of the 1.T. Act.\"\n57. The AO has made this addition in Para 7 of assessment-order under\nthe hearing “Introduction of Capital”. The AO has noted the inferences\ngathered by him from Capital A/cs of 7 partners of assessee-firm and\nultimately made an addition of Rs.4,05,38,902/- [this figure is stated

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

Appeals are dismissed

section 68 of the 1.T. Act.\"\n57. The AO has made this addition in Para 7 of assessment-order under\nthe hearing “Introduction of Capital”. The AO has noted the inferences\ngathered by him from Capital A/cs of 7 partners of assessee-firm and\nultimately made an addition of Rs.4,05,38,902/- [this figure is stated

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 Act by stating that only copy of ledger was filed without PAN. The appellant during 19 Sanjay Lunawat ITA No.396/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.32/Ind/2018 the course of appellate proceeding filed copy of account of the appellant in the book of M/s Jain Infratech and contra account of M/s Jain Infratech in the book of the appellant, copy

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

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

RECONNECT ENERGY SOLUTION P LT,BENGALURU vs. THE DCIT 4(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoreconnect Energy Solution Ltd. Dcit 1(4) No.22, Vk Kalyani, 7Th Floor Indore Vs. Sankey Road, Bengaluru (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aafcr 0074 H Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2023

section 68 of the Act that if the assessee has explained the identity and capacity of the investor as well as the genuineness of the transactions then the addition cannot be made. Accordingly when the assessee itself has given the fair market value which was considered by the AO while making addition of the excess amount of premium over

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 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 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

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

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

section 68 of the Act, does not arise. In support of his contention he\nrelied on the following decisions:\n(i)\nSmt. Babbal Bhatia vs. ITO, ITA No.5430 & 5432 (ITAT, Delhi).\n(ii)\nCIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi 141 ITR 67 (Bom).\n(iii)\nSampat Automobile vs. ITO 96

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 only when such amount is actually credited in the books of accounts of the said year. It is further contended that the entire share application money was received prior to 01.04.2012 and was credited in the books of accounts of the respective earlier years. The appellant has contended that the addition has been made

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

96 CCH 0004 Del HC 29. The Ld. Counsel also challenged the reopening of the case of the assessee after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year in light of the first proviso to section 147 of the Act which specifically provided that no action shall be taken under Section

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

96 CCH 0004 Del HC 29. The Ld. Counsel also challenged the reopening of the case of the assessee after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year in light of the first proviso to section 147 of the Act which specifically provided that no action shall be taken under Section

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

96 CCH 0004 Del HC 29. The Ld. Counsel also challenged the reopening of the case of the assessee after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year in light of the first proviso to section 147 of the Act which specifically provided that no action shall be taken under Section

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

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the \"Act\" for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066827989(1) dated 19.07.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order\". The relevant Assessment Year

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:

section 68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and therefore, no addition is sustainable to the total income of the respondent firm on account of capital introduced by the partners. 1.5.5.1] The said documents as submitted during the course of appellate proceedings were also forwarded to the assessing officer for his comments. However, the assessing officer in his remand

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 may be invoked which is not the case here at all 4.19 With due respect, it is submitted that the allegation that the appellant has infused its own money in the grab of unsecured loon is without any basis and not correct and merely on the basis of conjecture or surmises. It is also undisputed fact that