SHRI PRABHAT SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

80C and 80D. A separate addition for same was made at Rs. 2,05,383. WHAT THE LD CIT(A) DID? a. Ld CIT(A) accepted the adhoc estimation of the ld Assessing Officer at Rs. 6,00,000 again without any basis. However, as per the ld CIT(A), since the capital account of assessee, wife and HUF showed

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

80C and 80D. A separate addition for same was made at Rs. 2,05,383. WHAT THE LD CIT(A) DID? a. Ld CIT(A) accepted the adhoc estimation of the ld Assessing Officer at Rs. 6,00,000 again without any basis. However, as per the ld CIT(A), since the capital account of assessee, wife and HUF showed

SHRI LAV NARANG,UJJAIN vs. PCIT,, UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16

capital gain and income from other source and after claiming the deduction u/s 80C of the Act total income has been shown at Rs. 49,15,731/- whereas surprisingly on looking to the assessment order dated 30.12.2017 we find that the assessment has been completed only by estimating 10 Shri Lav Nagrang the income @10% on the turnover disclosed

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SUJALPUR MANDI vs. THE ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

80C of the Act. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, the assessee duly filed the statements of bank accounts where it was found that the assessee had deposited Rs.24,49,626/- which was claimed as his and his family ITA Nos.20&21/Ind/2022 Mojilal Rajput vs. ITO&PCIT Asst. Year–2009-10 - 3 – members’ income from sale of agricultural crops

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SHUJALPUR MANDI vs. ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

80C of the Act. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, the assessee duly filed the statements of bank accounts where it was found that the assessee had deposited Rs.24,49,626/- which was claimed as his and his family ITA Nos.20&21/Ind/2022 Mojilal Rajput vs. ITO&PCIT Asst. Year–2009-10 - 3 – members’ income from sale of agricultural crops

SHASHI PRABHA SINGHANIA,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER NEEMUCH, NEEMUCH

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act" for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal as and by way of Second appeal under the Act. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065972504(1) dated 24.06.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred