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

Unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. The Appellant prays that the said addition be directed to be deleted. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add amend any or all grounds at the time of hearing.” 3. Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 13.01.2026 when

THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S MOENUS TEXTILE PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10

unexplained share application money in light of the relevant fact and material which remains 7 Moenus Textile P. Ltd. uncontroverted by the Ld. DR. We, thus confirm the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting addition made by the ld. AO u/s 68 of the Act. Ground No.1 raised by the revenue stands dismiss. 8. Apropos to ground no.2 which relates

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. DILIP KUMAR MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN HUF, INDORE

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Dilip Kumar Mahendra Acit (Central)-1, Vs. Kumar Jain, 6, Near Jagdale School, Indore Janki Nagar, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaehd1394J Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr.Dr Appellant By Shri Mahesh Agrawal, Adv. Date Of Hearing 05.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement .02.2021 O R D E R

unexplained investments u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE and Rs. 2,03,610/- on account of unaccounted interest income. During the course of search in the case of MRJ Group on 23.03.2018, various documents pertaining to the appellant was found and seized. The AO on perusal of these documents transpired out that the assessee during FY 2010-11 has given cash loans

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 during demonetization period as under

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article or thing. 1(b). That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming an addition to the extent of Rs.38,47,800/- out of the total addition of Rs.2,56,52,000/- made by the AO in the appellant’s income

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article or thing. 1(b). That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming an addition to the extent of Rs.38,47,800/- out of the total addition of Rs.2,56,52,000/- made by the AO in the appellant’s income

GLOBUS HOUSING,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

unexplained credit, it is open to the Assessing Officer to hold that it is income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the Assessing Officer to show that the income is from any particular Page 8 of 15 Globus Housing ITA. No.872/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2014-15 source as held in CIT vs. Devi Prasad Viswanath Prasad

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

Appeal is dismissed

money u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 is hereby made to the total income of the assessee which is taxed as per provisions of section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961.\nIn view of these facts, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is hereby initiated by issuing penalty notice u/s 274 read with section 271AAC

M/S. ALANKAR JEWELLWER,VIDISHA vs. THE ACIT- II, VIDISHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessees in

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2016-17 M/S. Alankar Jewellers Acit-Ii Nikasha Road, Vidisha Bhopal बनाम/ Vidisha Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aavfa1527D It(Ss)A No.205/Ind/2019 Assessment Year:2016-17 Acit-Ii M/S. Alankar Jewellers Bhopal Nikasha Road, Vidisha बनाम/ Vidisha Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aavfa1527D Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Respondent By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad:

money lending business in their individual hands. Since the alleged seized documents referred for making alleged addition are not connected to the assessee firm, no addition of Rs.3,07,500/- was called for u/s 69 of the Act. We find no infirmity in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and the same is confirmed. Accordingly ground no.1 & 2 of revenue

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

TDS, obtaining of PAN of the Payee- transporter alone is sufficient and no further confirmation letters were required. It was also held that sections 194C(6) of the Act and Section 194C(7) of the Act are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C

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

TDS, obtaining of PAN of the Payee- transporter alone is sufficient and no further confirmation letters were required. It was also held that sections 194C(6) of the Act and Section 194C(7) of the Act are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C

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

TDS, obtaining of PAN of the Payee- transporter alone is sufficient and no further confirmation letters were required. It was also held that sections 194C(6) of the Act and Section 194C(7) of the Act are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C

INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. PURUSHOTTAM GUPTA, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed and\n\"impugned order” is set aside

TDS is deducted. Names of debtors are not\ndisclosed so on and so forth which are all from the records. We\ntherefore are of the considered view that Ld. A.O has rightly\nformed an opinion that such explanation is not satisfactory with\nregard to sources of money. The ultimate source from whom\nmoney is collected in cash to staggering amount

ACIT CENTTRAL -2 INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KALYAN TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, INDORE

Accordingly ground no. 2 of the cross objection stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit Central-2, M/S Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Indore Ltd., Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aacck1840M

money account to share capital account and the AO asked the assessee to produce shareholders before him. The AO found that assessee merely furnished copies of pay orders used for payments to assessee company and also furnished income tax particulars and balance sheets of all shareholders. The AO concluded that shareholders did not have creditworthiness to invest in assessee company

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

money is to be deposited in advance as per the schedule agreed to between the parties. Accordingly, there is nothing unusual or abnormal to receive such advances from the applicants/customers in this case too. As regards the observation of the A.O. regarding the furnishing of confirmations which included customers of outside Bhopal and even abroad, the appellant has explained that

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

money in the appellant for working capital purpose on which the appellants has paid interest @ 16% to 18% which is higher than the rate of interest paid so the other parties. 2.5 In the matter it was explained that the advances received from promoter group and relatives also have cost and different characteristics from the other borrowings such

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

money in the appellant for working capital purpose on which the appellants has paid interest @ 16% to 18% which is higher than the rate of interest paid so the other parties. 2.5 In the matter it was explained that the advances received from promoter group and relatives also have cost and different characteristics from the other borrowings such

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

money in the appellant for working capital purpose on which the appellants has paid interest @ 16% to 18% which is higher than the rate of interest paid so the other parties. 2.5 In the matter it was explained that the advances received from promoter group and relatives also have cost and different characteristics from the other borrowings such