JCIT OSD (CENTRAL)-1, RATLAM vs. SHRI KANTILAL KATARIA, RATLAM

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. and made addition thereto, and also made an addition of Rs.12,60,000/- on account of short term capital gain

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

capital gain 44,81,373 5 Addition of amounts paid by WCS 35,50,000 6 Disallowance u/s 40A(3) 14,34,307 Assessed income 8,42,92,165 4. Aggrieved by the additions/disallowances made by AO, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and succeeded partly. Now, the revenue has come in this appeal on various grounds assailing

SAPAN SHAH,INDORE vs. ACIT-4(I), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

unexplained expenditure in respect of estimation of commission expense made by the Ld. AO @5% on the amount of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.83,94,034 034. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and applicable law, Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206,60,987/Ind/2019 Ld. CIT(A)-II, Indore erred

SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

unexplained expenditure in respect of estimation of commission expense made by the Ld. AO @5% on the amount of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.83,94,034 034. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and applicable law, Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206,60,987/Ind/2019 Ld. CIT(A)-II, Indore erred

DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

unexplained expenditure in respect of estimation of commission expense made by the Ld. AO @5% on the amount of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.83,94,034 034. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and applicable law, Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206,60,987/Ind/2019 Ld. CIT(A)-II, Indore erred

MANISH GOVIND AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

unexplained expenditure in respect of estimation of commission expense made by the Ld. AO @5% on the amount of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.83,94,034 034. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and applicable law, Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206,60,987/Ind/2019 Ld. CIT(A)-II, Indore erred

GOVIND HARINARAYAN AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

unexplained expenditure in respect of estimation of commission expense made by the Ld. AO @5% on the amount of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.83,94,034 034. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and applicable law, Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206,60,987/Ind/2019 Ld. CIT(A)-II, Indore erred

PRAYANK JAIN,INDORE vs. ACIT5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

unexplained expenditure in respect of estimation of commission expense made by the Ld. AO @5% on the amount of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.83,94,034 034. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and applicable law, Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206,60,987/Ind/2019 Ld. CIT(A)-II, Indore erred

MOHANLAL 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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act when the assessee has been able to discharge its primary onus effectively and satisfactorily. The Revenue could not establish live link between cash deposited by the assessee in form of long term capital gain. 4. The Revenue’s allegation that investigation was carried out by various authorities and SEBI and that

SMT. SANDHYA KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act when the assessee has been able to discharge its primary onus effectively and satisfactorily. The Revenue could not establish live link between cash deposited by the assessee in form of long term capital gain. 4. The Revenue’s allegation that investigation was carried out by various authorities and SEBI and that

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act when the assessee has been able to discharge its primary onus effectively and satisfactorily. The Revenue could not establish live link between cash deposited by the assessee in form of long term capital gain. 4. The Revenue’s allegation that investigation was carried out by various authorities and SEBI and that

RADHESHYAM KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ACIT4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act when the assessee has been able to discharge its primary onus effectively and satisfactorily. The Revenue could not establish live link between cash deposited by the assessee in form of long term capital gain. 4. The Revenue’s allegation that investigation was carried out by various authorities and SEBI and that

SMT. RUKMANI KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act when the assessee has been able to discharge its primary onus effectively and satisfactorily. The Revenue could not establish live link between cash deposited by the assessee in form of long term capital gain. 4. The Revenue’s allegation that investigation was carried out by various authorities and SEBI and that

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)

unexplained investment 4 Mohanlal Chugh & others in ‘Pulak City’ project and Rs.3,81,11,476/- on account of undisclosed investment in ‘ Sun City’ project without appreciating the facts and evidences brought in to light by the AO during assessment proceedings.” 2. First, we shall take up the departmental appeals filed in the case of Mohanlal Chug for the assessment years

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)

unexplained investment 4 Mohanlal Chugh & others in ‘Pulak City’ project and Rs.3,81,11,476/- on account of undisclosed investment in ‘ Sun City’ project without appreciating the facts and evidences brought in to light by the AO during assessment proceedings.” 2. First, we shall take up the departmental appeals filed in the case of Mohanlal Chug for the assessment years

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)

unexplained investment 4 Mohanlal Chugh & others in ‘Pulak City’ project and Rs.3,81,11,476/- on account of undisclosed investment in ‘ Sun City’ project without appreciating the facts and evidences brought in to light by the AO during assessment proceedings.” 2. First, we shall take up the departmental appeals filed in the case of Mohanlal Chug for the assessment years

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

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

gains too. I think, the\nIncome-tax Officer also has a share of the burden of the onus, as the\ncase may be, to show as to under what head this income would fall\nand that the discharge of the burden or onus must be on acceptable\nmaterial and strong probabilities. I am, therefore, of the opinion that,\nin this

RAJARAM PATIDAR,BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(4), HOSHANGABAD ROAD

Appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2010-11 Rajaram Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, H.No.112, Near Ram Lila 2(4), Maidan, Hoshangabad Road, बनाम/ Ward No. 52-53, Bhopal Vs. Misrod (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Bkapp7594R Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2024

unexplained cash-credit. The AO, however, accepted agricultural income declared by assessee. The assessee carried matter in first-appeal whereupon the CIT(A) confirmed additions to the extent of (i) Rs. 2,92,60,829/- on account of long-term capital gain and (ii) Rs. 1,06,772/- on account of interest income. The assessee then carried matter to next