SHRI SUNIL SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE -2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

cash. The restriction was on a loan or deposit u/s. 269SS. It is therefore prayed that no addition is called for. GROUND NO.6 (REVISED) : DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST/ INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AO para 9. CIT(A) pg. 34 para 13. Addition by ld AO Rs. 9,38,756 - Expenditure for earning interest Enhancement

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

cash deposited from hundis treated it as unaccounted income from “Vyapam scam” allegedly linking with the assessee and treated it as receipt of illegal money as bribe for admission in medical colleges in M.P and accordingly made the addition of Rs. 7,34,79,097/-. In this way as against the return of income at Rs.7

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

cash deposited from hundis treated it as unaccounted income from “Vyapam scam” allegedly linking with the assessee and treated it as receipt of illegal money as bribe for admission in medical colleges in M.P and accordingly made the addition of Rs. 7,34,79,097/-. In this way as against the return of income at Rs.7

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

cash deposited from hundis treated it as unaccounted income from “Vyapam scam” allegedly linking with the assessee and treated it as receipt of illegal money as bribe for admission in medical colleges in M.P and accordingly made the addition of Rs. 7,34,79,097/-. In this way as against the return of income at Rs.7

THE ACIT (CENTRAL) II, BHOPAL vs. M/S SIGNATURE BUILDERS, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

cash-deposits stand fully explained. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 69,38,000/- made by Ld. AO. Page 5 of 11 M/s. Signature Builders Assessment year 2017-18 We do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A). Hence Ground

HUSAIN KOHAWALA,KUKSHI DISTT. DHAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF APPEAL, NFAC

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanihusain Kohawala, Cit (A), Saifiya Marg Bohra Mohalla, Nfac, Near Macchi Darwaza, Delhi Kukshi, Vs. Dhar (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bkrpk6392P Assessee By Shri Parag Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.10.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm:

TDS Income 1 Vodafone Idea Limited 1,72,841 35/- 10,468/- 2 M. P Online Limited 6,956.84/- 349/- Total 1,79,798.19/- 10,817/- 5.5 Verification of the return reveals that the appellant has disclosed his commission income in the return of income. Further, analysis of bank account, reveals that cash deposits

THE ITO, DHAR vs. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA, DHAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

cash deposits in the bank account of M/s. Lakshmi Sakh Sahakarita Marydit Society u/s 69 of the I.T. Act without appreciating the findings of the AO. 2. deleting the addition of Rs.55,42,838/- on account of unexplained fixed deposit credited in the bank account of M/s. Lakshmi Sakh Sahakarita Marydit Society u/s 69 of the I.T. Act without appreciating

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

cash in hand that the bank statement do not show such heavy deposit for the last financial year. Once it is matter of record that the deposits were made on 4th April 2016 then obviously it would not be found deposited on 31.03.2016. Once the entire record was produced before the AO who has Page 17 of 32 Sewa Sahakari

ACIT (CENTRAL) , UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S GLOBUS HOUSING PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central) M/S. Globus Housing Pvt. Ltd. 176, Zone-Ii, First Floor, M.P. Ujjain Vs. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Aaecg 0623 J Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Yash Kukreja, Ars Date Of Hearing 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

cash deposited in the bank account of the third party not related to the assesse and its director is not proper and justified. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) qua this issue. 10. Ground No.2 is regarding addition made

S.R.DIGITAL AND BROADBAND PVT.LTD. ,INDORE vs. PCIT(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 S.R. Digital Tv & Pcit, Broadband Private Indore बनाम/ Limited, 335 Orbit Mall, A. B.Road, Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aavcs1165L Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, C.A. Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

Cash in hand, and (ii) Deduction and deposit of TDS. Therefore, the issue of carry forward of losses was beyond

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RATLAM, RATLAM vs. SHRI SURESH CHAND JAIN, JHABUA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & Acit 5(1) Shri Suresh Chand Jain Indore 99, Thandla Road, Vs. Meghnagar,Jhabua (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan:Aezpj 2697F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .09.2023

TDS on the payment made on account of repairs and maintenance. Therefore, the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.23,38,690/- is deleted. Therefore, the appeal on these grounds is Allowed.” 8.1 Thus, it is clear that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted this addition on the ground that the payment made by the assesse for repair

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RATLAM vs. SHRI SURESH CHAND JAIN, MEGHNAGAR DIST. JHABUA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & Acit 5(1) Shri Suresh Chand Jain Indore 99, Thandla Road, Vs. Meghnagar,Jhabua (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan:Aezpj 2697F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .09.2023

TDS on the payment made on account of repairs and maintenance. Therefore, the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.23,38,690/- is deleted. Therefore, the appeal on these grounds is Allowed.” 8.1 Thus, it is clear that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted this addition on the ground that the payment made by the assesse for repair

SURESH KUMAR,MANAS BHAWAN, RNT MARG, INDORE vs. ITO, BURHANPUR, INDORE

In the result we are of the considered

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisuresh Kumar, Ito –Burhanpur. बनाम/ 112, Manas Bhawan, Vs. 11 Rnt Marg, Indore (Pan: Eekps7728B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date Of 22.01.2026 Pronouncement आदेश/ O R D E R

cash deposited into the bank account was out of agricultural income was not acceptable. Hence, the addition of Rs.65,36,100/- made as unexplained money is upheld. Further, the addition of Rs.2,59,581/- as Salary Income is also upheld. 5. As a result, this appeal is dismissed.” 2.7 The assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Order” has preferred

THE DCIT, 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. MODERN LABORATORIES, INDORE

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ ./ ./ I.T.A. No.277 & Co.16/Ind/2014 ./ "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09

cash deposits during the assessment year under consideration in these accounts. The AO himself in his remand report has not pointed out any major discrepancies. In the present case in view of the above foregoing discussion, we observe that the assessee filed all possible documents before the AO which were also submitted to the AO by the respective companies

NEETA GOYAL ,NEEMUCH vs. THE ITO NEEMUCH , NEEMUCH

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Smt.Neeta Devi Goyal, I.T.O., “Geetayan” , Bungalow No. Neemuch, बनाम/ 60, Opp. Govt. College, Vs. Neemuch (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaspg0943Q Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2023

cash-withdrawal of Rs. 6,00,000/- from same Bank A/c on 10.03.2012 and the unutilized balance available out of such withdrawal was re-deposited. But the AO did not accept claim of re- deposit out of previous withdrawal with the reasoning that the assessee had already re-deposited in bank a/c on 16.03.2012 & 19.03.2012. Then, the AO also noted

RENUKA ANSINGKAR,BHOPAL vs. ITO-2(4), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raorenuka Ansingkar Ito-2(4) 168, Indus Empire, Near Rajiv Bhopal Vs. Gandhi College, Trilanga Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aespa6372 D Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2024

cash deposit in the joint savings bank account of Rs. 11,53,820 without considering the fact that the same has already been reported in the return of income of the husband, Makarand Ansingkar 6.On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition made on account of commission income

THE ACIT (CENTRAL), UJJAIN vs. M/S. VYANKTESH PLASTICS & PACKAGING (P) LTD., UJJAIN

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

cash were being deposited in certain bank accounts and subsequently, those were layered in the lender companies and then to the assessee company. The Ld. CIT-DR also made reference of various tally screen shots which were reproduced by the AO in the body of the assessment order and contended that the screenshots of various vouchers and ledger accounts clearly

ACIT (CENTRAL) , UJJAIN vs. M/S. ARIBA FOODS (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

cash were being deposited in certain bank accounts and subsequently, those were layered in the lender companies and then to the assessee company. The Ld. CIT-DR also made reference of various tally screen shots which were reproduced by the AO in the body of the assessment order and contended that the screenshots of various vouchers and ledger accounts clearly