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

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

69A on account of unexplained cash deposit in bank\na/c.\n8.\nArguing for this issue, Ld. AR at first narrated that it is a normal\ntrend in real estate transactions that the registered sale-deeds are made at\nlower prices and the actual price is not documented. He submitted that the\nGovt. has taken several steps even in Income

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

transfer of such capital asset has to be charged only under the provisions of s.45 of the Act. We find merit in the argument of the AR that under provisions of clause (b) of section 153A, the Assessing Officer is required to assess or reassess the total income of an assessee. We also find that the expression ‘total income

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

transfer of such capital asset has to be charged only under the provisions of s.45 of the Act. We find merit in the argument of the AR that under provisions of clause (b) of section 153A, the Assessing Officer is required to assess or reassess the total income of an assessee. We also find that the expression ‘total income

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

transfer of such capital asset has to be charged only under the provisions of s.45 of the Act. We find merit in the argument of the AR that under provisions of clause (b) of section 153A, the Assessing Officer is required to assess or reassess the total income of an assessee. We also find that the expression ‘total income

SMT. INDIRA BOHRA,,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

69A of the Act on account of so called shares transaction. The appellant has sold through Arihant Capital Markets Ltd. in BSE and transferred the shares to the purchaser from his Demat Account and the payment has also been obtained by means of A/c payee cheque only. It is true that the appellant has purchased and sold the shares

SHRI RAKESH JAIN,INDORE vs. I T O IT & TP, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is set aside to the file of ld

Bench: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEBER, SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTNT MEMBER Shri Rakesh Jain, 35, Ravi Nagar, Khajrana Road, Indore

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- I.T.A No. 07/Ind/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 2 Shri Rakesh Jain vs. ITO IT & TP “Grounds of Income-Tax appeal before the Hon'ble Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, against the Appellate Order passed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5 1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

price. P&G has constructed factory building on land and also installed plant and machinery. The plant and machinery does not belong to assessee but to P&G. Reimbursement of expenses is also made by P&G. The assessee is working for P&G, not for anybody else. These factors clearly show that the assessee is just an operator

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 5(1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

price. P&G has constructed factory building on land and also installed plant and machinery. The plant and machinery does not belong to assessee but to P&G. Reimbursement of expenses is also made by P&G. The assessee is working for P&G, not for anybody else. These factors clearly show that the assessee is just an operator

MS MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2 (1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

price. P&G has constructed factory building on land and also installed plant and machinery. The plant and machinery does not belong to assessee but to P&G. Reimbursement of expenses is also made by P&G. The assessee is working for P&G, not for anybody else. These factors clearly show that the assessee is just an operator

MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD ,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT -2- (1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

price. P&G has constructed factory building on land and also installed plant and machinery. The plant and machinery does not belong to assessee but to P&G. Reimbursement of expenses is also made by P&G. The assessee is working for P&G, not for anybody else. These factors clearly show that the assessee is just an operator

MS MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2 (1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

price. P&G has constructed factory building on land and also installed plant and machinery. The plant and machinery does not belong to assessee but to P&G. Reimbursement of expenses is also made by P&G. The assessee is working for P&G, not for anybody else. These factors clearly show that the assessee is just an operator

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -5(1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT. LTD., BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

price. P&G has constructed factory building on land and also installed plant and machinery. The plant and machinery does not belong to assessee but to P&G. Reimbursement of expenses is also made by P&G. The assessee is working for P&G, not for anybody else. These factors clearly show that the assessee is just an operator

SANJEEV AGRAWAL ,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Price Waterhouse & Co Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income\nTax, Circle-22, ITA No. 1985/Kol2018 Order dated 5/2/2020, it\nwas observed:-\n“11. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid judicial precedents and other case\nlaws, we note that to initiate reopening of the assessment, the Ld. AO must\nhave 'reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold and silver

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold and silver

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold and silver

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

price of Rs. 42,00,000/- shown in registered-deed and thus made an addition of Rs. 27,52,340/- on account of undisclosed income. The Ld. AO further observed that the assessee had actually received a sum of Rs. 62,00,000/- from Shri Amar Singh [which is disclosed as “Advance for booking” in books of account

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

price of Rs. 42,00,000/- shown in registered-deed and thus made an addition of Rs. 27,52,340/- on account of undisclosed income. The Ld. AO further observed that the assessee had actually received a sum of Rs. 62,00,000/- from Shri Amar Singh [which is disclosed as “Advance for booking” in books of account