DCIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL, MHOW

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

delay in filing the appeals is condoned in view of Covid-19 restrictions. As submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and as also concurred with by the Ld. Departmental Representative that the issues raised in all these appeals are common and inter-linked and as also, are arising out of the similar facts, for the sake of convenience

DCIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL, MHOW

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

delay in filing the appeals is condoned in view of Covid-19 restrictions. As submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and as also concurred with by the Ld. Departmental Representative that the issues raised in all these appeals are common and inter-linked and as also, are arising out of the similar facts, for the sake of convenience

SATYENDRA KUMAR VYAS,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as barred by

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

cash deposit made during the year". Condonation of delay necessarily depends upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree

NILESH JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2011-12 Nilesh Jain, Ito 1(1) 1, Gandhi Chowk, Indore बनाम/ Chandrawati Ganj Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ajxpj3919M Assessee By Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The background facts leading to present appeal are as under: (i) The assessee-individual is a small trader engaged in the business of oil cake (khali) at a small town ‘Chandrawati Ganj’. For AY 2011-12, the assessee did not file any return. The AO, on the basis of information

M/S PLATINUM HORAZINE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

condone the delay of 106 days and admit the appeal and allow the appeal proceeded with for adjudication. 6. Now we shall deal with regular grounds of appeal of the assessee which reads as us under:- 1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)-II Indore has erred in confirming penalty

SHRI DEEPAK SONI, BHYOPAL vs. THE ITO 4 (3), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhashri Deepak Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Acyps8020J) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Kumar Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambey Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Avgps0484F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The brief facts leading to this appeal are such that the assessee- individual is engaged in jewellery business the name of M/s Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal. For AY 2017-18 under consideration, the assessee filed return declaring a total income of Rs. 8,73,380/-. The case was selected under scrutiny

SANDEEP KUMAR SONI,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 4(3), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhashri Deepak Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Acyps8020J) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Kumar Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambey Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Avgps0484F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The brief facts leading to this appeal are such that the assessee- individual is engaged in jewellery business the name of M/s Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal. For AY 2017-18 under consideration, the assessee filed return declaring a total income of Rs. 8,73,380/-. The case was selected under scrutiny

JABBAR KHAN,DEWAS vs. CIT , UJJAIN

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2009-10 Jabbar Khan, Pr. Cit, Village-Siya, Tehsil-Dewas बनाम/ Ujjain Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Cndpk 0362 H Assessee By Shri Ashok Mahajan, Ar Revenue By None Date Of Hearing 26.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2022

delay is condoned and the appeal is proceeding for hearing. 4. Briefly stated the facts are such that the revenue received an information from AIR that the assessee had made cash-deposit

RADHESHYAM,VILLAGE SEVDA , ASHTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiradheyshyam, Cit (A), बनाम/ Village Sevda, Nfac Vs. Ashta, Delhi Madhya Pradesh (Pan:Cezpr5392R) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

cash deposits made in the Bank Account as income ignoring the outgoings from the Bank Account. 3. That the income assessed at Rs. 12,85,000/-and confirmed by the CIT(A) be held to be bad and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The income assessed be quashed and deleted. 4. In the alternative

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SUJALPUR MANDI vs. THE ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condone the delay in filing such appeals before us. ITA No. 21/Ind/2022 (A.Y. 2009-10):- 3. The brief facts leading to the case is this that the assessee, an individual, filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 30.09.2009 declaring income at Rs.1,76,580/- and agricultural income of Rs.1,40,576/-. On the basis

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SHUJALPUR MANDI vs. ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condone the delay in filing such appeals before us. ITA No. 21/Ind/2022 (A.Y. 2009-10):- 3. The brief facts leading to the case is this that the assessee, an individual, filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 30.09.2009 declaring income at Rs.1,76,580/- and agricultural income of Rs.1,40,576/-. On the basis

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. I.T.O. 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the substantive addition was made in the hands of Shri Manish Kothari, President of the Society, Vardhman Sakh Sahakarita Maryadit Ujjain and protective addition was made in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) has confirmed the substantive addition

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. I.T.O. 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the substantive addition was made in the hands of Shri Manish Kothari, President of the Society, Vardhman Sakh Sahakarita Maryadit Ujjain and protective addition was made in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) has confirmed the substantive addition

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. ITO 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the substantive addition was made in the hands of Shri Manish Kothari, President of the Society, Vardhman Sakh Sahakarita Maryadit Ujjain and protective addition was made in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) has confirmed the substantive addition

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. I.T.O. 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the substantive addition was made in the hands of Shri Manish Kothari, President of the Society, Vardhman Sakh Sahakarita Maryadit Ujjain and protective addition was made in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) has confirmed the substantive addition

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. ITO 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the substantive addition was made in the hands of Shri Manish Kothari, President of the Society, Vardhman Sakh Sahakarita Maryadit Ujjain and protective addition was made in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) has confirmed the substantive addition

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. I.T.O. 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the substantive addition was made in the hands of Shri Manish Kothari, President of the Society, Vardhman Sakh Sahakarita Maryadit Ujjain and protective addition was made in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) has confirmed the substantive addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL vs. SH. PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA, BHOPAL

In the result the “impugned order” is sustained on the first

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit, Prakash Chandra, बनाम/ Bhopal 16/244, Kings Vs. Shopping Centre, Mp Nagar, Zone-I, Bhopal-462011 Madhya Pradesh (Pan:Aappg5194E)

deposits in this case do not warrant addition under section 68 as the source is clearly from business. Hence it is held that cash sales which is shown as income and is duly entered in the regular books of accounts cannot be taxed under section 68. As a result, ground no 1 is allowed. (4) Ground No. 2 is raised