ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN vs. A ONE ENCLAVE, UJJAIN

In the result, grounds taken by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1(1), V/S M/S. A One Enclave, Ujjain 3687/1, Hariphatak Road, Ujjain

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D." 10. In light of above, given the fact that the AO has invoked the provisions of section 11BBE in the instant case, the provisions of sub-section (2) to section 11BBE are equally applicable. The amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2016 whereby

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

undisclosed income as held by the ld. AO. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) rightly holding that the provision of section 115BBE of the Act are not applicable on the surrendered income on account of excess stock valuing at Rs. 1,41,75,568/-found during the course of search. Thus, grounds

M/S NIKHIL ESTATE P LTD,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE (3) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Nikhil Estate Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Central)-3 M-102, Mezzanine, Floor, Indore Dhan Trident, P. No.B-3 Pu- Vs. 4, Sch. No.54, Vijay Nagar Square, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 8056 D Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.06.2023

undisclosed income as held by the ld. AO. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) rightly holding that the provision of section 115BBE of the Act are not applicable on the surrendered income on account of excess stock valuing at Rs. 1,41,75,568/-found during the course of search. Thus, grounds

DCIT,CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI KRIHNA KUMAR VERMA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI (Accountant Member)

undisclosed business income assessable under the head 'business' and other two sums under section 69. The business income including application of section 40(b) has to be considered accordingly. For calculation of income in view of our above observations, we restore the matter to the file of AO. (d) ChokshiHiralalMaganlal Vs. DCIT, Ahemadabad (ITA No. 3281/Ahd/2009 dated 05.08.2011) In this

DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE vs. PUNJAB RETAIL (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

undisclosed stock is to be added as income. Accordingly, ground No.2 of the appeal of the Revenue is rejected.” 9. It appears from the reasons that the valuation of closing stock as taken by the DVO was at the prevailing market rate as on the date of search whereas the valuation of stock should have been calculated at cost

MR GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, INDORE

Accordingly. Thus, this ground is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Gaurav Ajmera, Dcit, बनाम/ 38, Ram Mohalla, Central Circle 2, Ratlam Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aglpa8863C Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.09.2023

section 69A itself is not applicable to the impugned income. To show this, Ld. AR contended that the impugned income was not “income from other source” or “Income from undisclosed sources”, it was income from business. Ld. AR submitted that in order to understand how the impugned income was business income, one has to draw a proper inference from

M/S PUMARTH PROPERTIES & HOLDING (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

section 68,69,69A,69B,69C or 69D forms part of the total income, then such income shall be chargeable to tax at the flat rate of 30%. The cash credits, unexplained investments, either in part or in full, income from undisclosed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 (1), INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. (M.P), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the revenue stands

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14 Dcit-2(1), M/S. Dthri Health Care Indore Vs. Pvt. Ltd (M.P), Pu-4, Scheme No.54, Near A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aabcd4095N Revenue By Shri R.P. Mourya, Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri Sumit Neema, Sr.Adv & Gagan Tiwari, Adv Date Of Hearing 17.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2019 O R D E R

section 147/148. During the course of reassessment proceedings Learned Assessing Officer (In short ‘Ld. A.O’) observed that as against the admitted undisclosed income of Rs.4,41,88,232/- the assessee has only declared income of Rs.2,11,29,807/- and the reasons for less disclosure was sought from the assessee. It was submitted before the Ld. Assessing Officer that there

STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD,GOVINDPURA BHOPAL vs. ACIT/DCIT 1(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Star Delta Transformers Acit/Dcit 1(1) Ltd., Bhopal 92-A Industrial Area बनाम/ Govindpura, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaccs0399D Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

68,695/- and unexplained stock of Rs. 4,39,948/-. Therefore, penalty to that extent is acceptable to assessee. 4. Ld. AR next submitted that the assessee is against penalty imposed by AO qua third component i.e. the undisclosed income of Rs. 17,00,000/- admitted during search and offered by assessee in the return of income filed

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, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of – (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and (ii) the amount of income

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, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of – (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and (ii) the amount of income

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, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of – (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and (ii) the amount of income

ACIT (CENTRAL) 1 INDORE , INDORE vs. SHRI KANTILAL KATARIA, RATLAM

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

undisclosed income for which a separate specific claim for set-off is made by the assessee), re-compute the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 of the Revenue is dismissed and Ground Nos. 1(a), 1(c) and 1(e) of the assessee are Partly Allowed and Ground No. 1(d) of the assessee is fully

JCIT OSD (CENTRAL)-1, RATLAM vs. SHRI KANTILAL KATARIA, RATLAM

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

undisclosed income for which a separate specific claim for set-off is made by the assessee), re-compute the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 of the Revenue is dismissed and Ground Nos. 1(a), 1(c) and 1(e) of the assessee are Partly Allowed and Ground No. 1(d) of the assessee is fully

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

68 of the Income tax Act, 1961. As the assessee has deliberately and willfully concealed its unaccounted income, and furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are initiated for concealment and furnishing the inaccurate particulars also initiated. Addition: Rs. 90,69,199/- Page 10 of 26 Shri Rupesh Vyas Assessment year

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. Sanjay

SAARAS AGRO INDUSTRIES ,KHANDWA vs. THE ACIT , KHANDWA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The assessee in ITA No. 910/Ind/2019 has raised following grounds: 1. Baseless addition of Rs.3,1l,56,849/- u/s 69.:- That the Ld. AO erred in treating Rs.3,11,56,849/- as undisclosed income u/s 68

M/S. KANAK AGRO INFRASTRUCTURE,KHANDWA vs. THE ITO WARD-1, KHANDWA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The assessee in ITA No. 910/Ind/2019 has raised following grounds: 1. Baseless addition of Rs.3,1l,56,849/- u/s 69.:- That the Ld. AO erred in treating Rs.3,11,56,849/- as undisclosed income u/s 68