NAVIN KUMAR JAIN,INDORE vs. ITO ACIT DYCIT FACELESS ASSESSMENT, INDORE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

transferred to other parties by RTGS etc. The assessee is one of the beneficiaries of the cash deposits. The asseessee had deposited cash of Rs. 50,17,236/-in the account of society and the same was not disclosed in the return of income. Cash deposition in this case remained unexplained.The facts have been examined and found correct. 3. Therefore

NAVIN KUMAR JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INDORE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

transferred to other parties by RTGS etc. The assessee is one of the beneficiaries of the cash deposits. The asseessee had deposited cash of Rs. 50,17,236/-in the account of society and the same was not disclosed in the return of income. Cash deposition in this case remained unexplained.The facts have been examined and found correct. 3. Therefore

THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

271, howsoever grave the suspicion the AO may entertain, the suspicion cannot take place of the evidence or finding of fact. The CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 suspicion on the AO’s part can certainly prompt him to conduct enquiry & investigation but ultimate finding of the authority must be based on the material or evidences gathered by him and which

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

271, howsoever grave the suspicion the AO may entertain, the suspicion cannot take place of the evidence or finding of fact. The CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 suspicion on the AO’s part can certainly prompt him to conduct enquiry & investigation but ultimate finding of the authority must be based on the material or evidences gathered by him and which

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

271, howsoever grave the suspicion the AO may entertain, the suspicion cannot take place of the evidence or finding of fact. The CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 suspicion on the AO’s part can certainly prompt him to conduct enquiry & investigation but ultimate finding of the authority must be based on the material or evidences gathered by him and which

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

C' Wing, 11th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021. This stock was valued at 13,47,63,640/- by the income tax valuer. Consequently the assessee declared this amount as stock in trade and this contention of the assessee was accepted by the Investigating officer. Who has released the stock after valuation and not impounded/seized. The statement of Shri Vipul

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

C' Wing, 11th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021. This stock was valued at 13,47,63,640/- by the income tax valuer. Consequently the assessee declared this amount as stock in trade and this contention of the assessee was accepted by the Investigating officer. Who has released the stock after valuation and not impounded/seized. The statement of Shri Vipul

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

271, howsoever grave the suspicion the AO may entertain, the suspicion cannot take place of the evidence or finding of fact. The suspicion on the AO’s part can certainly prompt him to conduct enquiry & investigation but ultimate finding of the authority must be based on the material or evidences gathered by him and which has live nexus with

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

271, howsoever grave the suspicion the AO may entertain, the suspicion cannot take place of the evidence or finding of fact. The suspicion on the AO’s part can certainly prompt him to conduct enquiry & investigation but ultimate finding of the authority must be based on the material or evidences gathered by him and which has live nexus with

HARPREET KAUR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 5(2), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

271(1)(c) of the 'Act' are\ninitiated separately. After rejection of claim LTCG as claimed by the assessee\nis being computed separately in forthcoming paras of the body of the\nassessment order.\nAddition - Rs.8,61,000/-.\n3. Computation of LTCG:\nDescription\nAmount\nComputation\nFull\nvalue of Consideration\n(sale\nRs.410000/-\nconsideration received in lieu of sale of land\nlocated

SACHCHIDANAND TRIPATHI ,BHOPAL vs. ITO 5(2) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15 Sachchidanand Tripati Ito 5(2) Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aampt3788N Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Respondent By Shri Amit Soni, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.12.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Bhopal Dated 01.05.2019 Which Are Arising Out Of The Order U/S 271B Of The Income Tax Act 1961(In Short The ‘Act’) Dated 26.05.2017 Framed By Ito-5(2) Bhopal.

price of the commodities received by an assessee during the course of his trading or business activities. It does not differentiate between commodities sold under the head speculative business/ normal business. Transfer of immovable or movable property by way of investment is not included by the provisions of the section 44AB of the Act. Provisions of the Act are clear

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

C. Vasantial and Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City, (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC) and KishinchandChellaram v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC): (1980) 19 CTR 360: (1980) 4 Taxman 29]. In view of this legal position, in our considered view the orders of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal are in violation

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

C. Vasantial and Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City, (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC) and KishinchandChellaram v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC): (1980) 19 CTR 360: (1980) 4 Taxman 29]. In view of this legal position, in our considered view the orders of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal are in violation

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

C. Vasantial and Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City, (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC) and KishinchandChellaram v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC): (1980) 19 CTR 360: (1980) 4 Taxman 29]. In view of this legal position, in our considered view the orders of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal are in violation

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

C. Vasantial and Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City, (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC) and KishinchandChellaram v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC): (1980) 19 CTR 360: (1980) 4 Taxman 29]. In view of this legal position, in our considered view the orders of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal are in violation

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

C. Vasantial and Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City, (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC) and KishinchandChellaram v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC): (1980) 19 CTR 360: (1980) 4 Taxman 29]. In view of this legal position, in our considered view the orders of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal are in violation

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

C. Vasantial and Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City, (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC) and KishinchandChellaram v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC): (1980) 19 CTR 360: (1980) 4 Taxman 29]. In view of this legal position, in our considered view the orders of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal are in violation

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

C. Vasantial and Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City, (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC) and KishinchandChellaram v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC): (1980) 19 CTR 360: (1980) 4 Taxman 29]. In view of this legal position, in our considered view the orders of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal are in violation