PRATHMIK KRASHI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI PEEKLON,VIDHISHA vs. ACIT, VIDHISHA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

unexplained money u/s 69A against cash deposits. 6. The appellant carves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal 3. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable being barred by limitation without giving an opportunity

INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

condone delay, admit these appeals and proceed with\nhearing.\n3. The background facts leading to present appeals are such that the\nassessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate. For AY\n2017-18 & 2018-19, the assessee filed its returns/revised returns of income\nu/s 139 declaring total incomes of Rs. Nil (with current year loss

INCOME TAX OFFICER INDORE 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

condone delay, admit these appeals and proceed with\nhearing.\n3. The background facts leading to present appeals are such that the\nassessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate. For AY\n2017-18 & 2018-19, the assessee filed its returns/revised returns of income\nu/s 139 declaring total incomes of Rs. Nil (with current year loss

ILIYAS,KHARGONE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiiliyas, Nfac, बनाम/ 56, Khargone Road Bedia, Delhi Vs. Khargone

condone the delay of 45 days in filing the appeal. Matter admitted and taken up for hearing. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That as and by way of Assessment Order bearing Number :- ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1053047716(1) dated 22.05.2023 the assessee’s total income was determined/computed at Rs.33,29,641/- in terms of Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. The aforesaid assessment order

SANDEEP KUMAR YADAV,BETUL vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHO

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshisandeep Kumar Yadav, Nfac, बना Palsyapalsya, Delhi म/ Palsya, Vs. The. Bhainsdehi, Betul (Pan: Afnpy3295D) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 51,34,500/- Total income 53,33,500/- 2.10 That the aforesaid assessment order of Ld. AO bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1042015250(1) and that the same is dated 30.03.2022 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order.” 2.11 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A

ARP SECURITIES LIMITED,INDORE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. However no written submissions were filed in respect of Grounds of Appeal No. 1 to 7. It is noted that the appeal of the appellant has been dismissed by me for non prosecution in para 6. In view thereof the various grounds raised in appeal have become academic in nature

KHOJEMA BOHRA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

Appeals are allowed

unexplained credit, the loan\nappearing in the books of the appellant in the instant case also\nstands on similar set of facts as the credit worthiness of the\nlender has not been satisfactorily proved. The Court after\nanalyzing various facts and legal precedents held that\n\"The lower appellate authorities appear to have ignored the\ndetailed findings

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)

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act towards capital introduction in the firm of the assessee as per the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 24.12.2019?" 5. Record of hearing 5.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 19.03.2026 when the Ld. DR for & on behalf of the revenue appeared before

ULTIMATE CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2010-11 Ultimate Construction, Dcit-1(1), G-1, Kamdenu Tower, Bhopal बनाम/ E-2/21, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aabfu9241J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, C.A. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.02.2024

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A)-3 was not justified in confirming the addition towards disallowance of Rs. 29,867/- on account of donation and charity expenses.” 2. The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed

LALJIPAL,BHOPAL vs. WARD-5(3) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Laljipal, The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 65, House No.75, Ward 5(3), Vidisha Road, Bhopal बनाम/ Gram Khejda Bramad, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Asqpp7836B Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.10.2024

condone the delay and hearing is proceeded. 3. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed his return of AY 2014-15 declaring a total income of Rs. 2,18,690/- which was subjected to scrutiny-assessment. During scrutiny-proceeding, the AO asked the assessee to explain source of payment

ARP SECURITIES LIMITED,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. However\nno written submissions were filed in respect of Grounds of\nAppeal No. 1 to 7. It is noted that the appeal of the appellant\nhas been dismissed by me for non prosecution in para 6. In view\nthereof the various grounds raised in appeal have become\nacademic in nature

ITO3(1), INDORE vs. K. K. PATEL FINANCE LTD. , MORENA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-3(1) K.K. Patel Finance Ltd. Indore 44, Jiwaji Ganj, बनाम/ Gandhi Aushdhalaya Road, Vs. Morena (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aabck 4282 G Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 15.12.2022 / 16.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023

condone delay and proceed with this appeal. 5. The sole controversy involved in the present-appeal is the addition of Rs. 20,19,50,000/- made by AO u/s 68 in respect of share application money received by assessee. 6. During assessment-proceeding, Ld. AO found that the assessee- company has received share-application money

KAMLESH KOUSHAL,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1(2), INDORE

cash (deposited\nduring demonetization) and other credits in the bank\naccount as unexplained income under section 69A of the\nIncome Tax Act and has further erred in ignoring the fact\nPage 11 of 18\nKamlesh Koushal\nITA No. 708/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2017-18\nthat the appellant is a farmer and having only source of\nincome out of agricultural activities. The appellant\ntherefore, most

SATISH KUMAR RADHESHYAM CHOUDHARI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

unexplained cash credit to Page 4 of 8 Satish Kumar Radheshyam Choudhari ITA No. 406/Ind/2024 – AY 2013-14 the income of the Appellant. The Appellant prays that the said addition be directed to be deleted. 4 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the NFAC erred in making addition under Section 68 of the Act without

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

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

TILAK KUMAR MALVIYA,JHABUA vs. ITO-2, RATLAM, RATLAM

Appeal is partly allowed as mentioned above

cash deposits during demonetization. The AO treated a significant portion of these deposits as unexplained income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to delay without adjudicating on merits. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. It held that the Rs. 15,00,000/- entry was a bank error, wrongly

NETINK TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT/ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result the “impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshinetink Technologies Dcit/Acit 3(1), बनाम/ Private Limited, Bhopal Vs. Plot No.6, Behind Congress Bhawan, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Pan:Aaecn4127C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

unexplained cash credits U/s 68 of The Act with the applicability of the provision of section 115BBE of The Act, without even going into the merits of the case. 6. That the above grounds are independent to each other.” 3. Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 02.09.2025 when