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

price, contract specifications, brokerage charges, etc., along with ledger accounts of the brokers and all the transactions were effected through normal banking channels. CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 6.1 From the assessment order, we also note that the AO has also not controverted the fact that the assessee had traded on NMCE through registered brokers as their client and their trading

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

unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act for the amount incurred for construction of the project and addition made solely on the basis of Departmental Valuation Officer report even though books of accounts of the assessee as well as the book results have not been rejected by the Ld. A.O nor any material evidence was unearthed during the course

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

Transfer Pricing), Bhopal. 1. That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action of the AO in determining the total income of the appellant u/s. 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 at Rs.29,43,010/-, as against the Returned Income of Rs.5,46,600/- thereby making additions of Rs.23

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

transferred. It would have a value in the market depending upon its quality. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. M.K. Gabrial Babu and others19, the High Court of Kerala was dealing with the question, as to whether immovable property would be covered within the expression ‘other value article or thing’ within the meaning of Section

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

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

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-tax law by introducing section

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

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

unexplained money on account of business receipts. The assessee challenged the action of the ld. AO before Ld. CIT(A) raising various legal ground as well as challenging the additions but partially succeeded. 4. In the meantime, since the assessee was part of the Ramani Group, all the cases of this group including the assessee were 3 Shri Jairam Education

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

unexplained money on account of business receipts. The assessee challenged the action of the ld. AO before Ld. CIT(A) raising various legal ground as well as challenging the additions but partially succeeded. 4. In the meantime, since the assessee was part of the Ramani Group, all the cases of this group including the assessee were 3 Shri Jairam Education

DECENT INDUSTRIES P. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Decent Industries Ito-1(2), Private Ltd, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Corporate Park, बनाम/ Db City Area Hills, Vs. Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeca6271G Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta & Shri N.K. Gupta Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

unexplained cash credits by way of share premium. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 is dismissed.” 11. Before us, Ld. AR for assessee made following contentions to assail the orders of lower-authorities: (i) The AO has made addition solely on the basis of statement of Shri Anand Sharma. The assessee has received moneys from “A” and “J” and does not know

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

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

M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 2(1), 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-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 an immovable property and unless such onus is discharged by the Revenue, there cannot be 11 Mohanlal Chugh & others any presumption as regard to the understatement. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) held that no effort has been made by the Assessing Officer for making any investigation or enquiry to substantiate his theory of receipt of on-money

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 an immovable property and unless such onus is discharged by the Revenue, there cannot be 11 Mohanlal Chugh & others any presumption as regard to the understatement. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) held that no effort has been made by the Assessing Officer for making any investigation or enquiry to substantiate his theory of receipt of on-money

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 an immovable property and unless such onus is discharged by the Revenue, there cannot be 11 Mohanlal Chugh & others any presumption as regard to the understatement. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) held that no effort has been made by the Assessing Officer for making any investigation or enquiry to substantiate his theory of receipt of on-money

SHRI SURESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

money in the form of alleged bogus long term capital gain with the help of many alleged connected parties through price rigging and price manipulations does not arise. 11. It was further submitted by the Ld. AR that the addition in Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 respect of 3% of total transaction