JAGDISH SOLANKI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER JHABUA, JHABUA

Appeal is dismissed

cash deposit from unexplained sources (Point No. 4); that the assessee had not filed return of income although the total income of assessee exceeded the maximum amount not chargeable to tax and that the case of assessee was covered under deeming provision of escapement under clause (a) of Explanation 2 to section 147 (Point

KUSUMLATA GARG,INDORE vs. DCIT ACIT 3 (1) INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

deposit. While contending so, the assessee is relying upon\nCash-Book filed by her to AO. The said Cash-Book was also filed to CIT(A).\nThe Cash-Book shows closing cash balance of Rs.99,95,140/- as on\n31.03.2016 and the same balance is carried to next year as opening cash\nbalance on 01.04.2016. This cash balance of Rs.99

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

RAKESH BHOJANI,SIYAGANJ INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -4(1), INDORE, CGO COMPLEX

Appeal is allowed

TDS had been deducted out of interest\npayment and remitted to Income-tax Department; the ITRs/PAN-datas of\nlenders are filed by asesesee; there are no cash deposits

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

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

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS has been deducted. Further, the transactions are through normal banking channels and the bank account of the lenders it can be seen that there are no cash deposits

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS has been deducted. Further, the transactions are through normal banking channels and the bank account of the lenders it can be seen that there are no cash deposits

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS has been deducted. Further, the transactions are through normal banking channels and the bank account of the lenders it can be seen that there are no cash deposits

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

cash deposit of Rs. 5600 Crores in various bank accounts, during the assessment years 2005-06 to 2011-12. ii) On examination of stock register, purchase and sale records, it was observed that the sales have been booked as per his convenience. The figure of cash sales are suppressed so that the actual profit could be suppressed

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

cash deposit of Rs. 5600 Crores in various bank accounts, during the assessment years 2005-06 to 2011-12. ii) On examination of stock register, purchase and sale records, it was observed that the sales have been booked as per his convenience. The figure of cash sales are suppressed so that the actual profit could be suppressed

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

cash deposit of Rs. 5600 Crores in various bank accounts, during the assessment years 2005-06 to 2011-12. ii) On examination of stock register, purchase and sale records, it was observed that the sales have been booked as per his convenience. The figure of cash sales are suppressed so that the actual profit could be suppressed