JYOTI GOYAL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed as mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Jyoti Goyal, Dcit, 18, Shyamla Hills, 1(1), बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abbpg3493P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

cash deposited in bank under section 69 treating the same as unexplained deposit. (4) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the assessee the ld. CIT(A), Delhi, was not justified in confirming disallowance

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

disallowed. Ld. A.O also observed that there were huge cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee during the month

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

disallowed. Ld. A.O also observed that there were huge cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee during the month

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

disallowed. Ld. A.O also observed that there were huge cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee during the month

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

disallowance out of various expenses claimed by the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.4,96,06,927/- made by the Assessing officer on account of bogus sundry creditors.” 2.4 Grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

disallowance out of various expenses claimed by the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.4,96,06,927/- made by the Assessing officer on account of bogus sundry creditors.” 2.4 Grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

disallowance out of various expenses claimed by the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.4,96,06,927/- made by the Assessing officer on account of bogus sundry creditors.” 2.4 Grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee

THE ACIT (CENTRAL) II, BHOPAL vs. M/S SIGNATURE BUILDERS, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

cash-deposits stand fully explained. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 69,38,000/- made by Ld. AO. Page 5 of 11 M/s. Signature Builders Assessment year 2017-18 We do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A). Hence Ground

SHRI MADANLAL GABBAJI BANJARA,NEEMUCH vs. THE ITO, NEEMUCH

In the result both the appeals for Assessment Years vide

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

cash deposited were amount received out of the unsecured loan taken in the preceding year but the same was not accepted and addition u/s 68 of the Act was made. Minor additions for disallowance

SHRI MADANLAL GABBAJI BANJARA,NEEMUCH vs. THE ITO, NEEMUCH

In the result both the appeals for Assessment Years vide

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

cash deposited were amount received out of the unsecured loan taken in the preceding year but the same was not accepted and addition u/s 68 of the Act was made. Minor additions for disallowance

BHAGWAN SINGH GOUR RUNNING AASHIRWAD FUEL POINT,VILLAGE NEEMKHEDI POST RUNAHA vs. ITO- 4 (3) CV R JAYA KUMAR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF ITO

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

cash deposits from undisclosed sources. 4. In appeal before Ld. CIT(A), the argument of the assessee was that the assessee was under the impression that petrol pumps are allowed to accept SBNs during the demonetization period. However, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: “The appellant further went on to explain the money

AMIT ASHOK AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-2(2), INDORE

In the result, the quantum appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and penalty appeal of assesse is allowed

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

cash deposited of Rs. 10,33,000/- under section 63 of the Income Tax Act. 6.3. The learned AO did not receive any submission from the appellant and on failure of the appellant to prove the genuineness of the transaction he disallowed

AMIT ASHOK AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-2(2), INDORE

In the result, the quantum appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and penalty appeal of assesse is allowed

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

cash deposited of Rs. 10,33,000/- under section 63 of the Income Tax Act. 6.3. The learned AO did not receive any submission from the appellant and on failure of the appellant to prove the genuineness of the transaction he disallowed

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SUJALPUR MANDI vs. THE ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

cash deposit in the bank account. Therefore it is neither a case of no enquiry or inadequate enquiry. Thus the order of Ld. A.O u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 148 of the Act dated 12.12.2016 framed in the case of S/Shri Ram Swaroop Bairagi, Shriram Vaishnav and Shailendra Vaishnav are neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SHUJALPUR MANDI vs. ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

cash deposit in the bank account. Therefore it is neither a case of no enquiry or inadequate enquiry. Thus the order of Ld. A.O u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 148 of the Act dated 12.12.2016 framed in the case of S/Shri Ram Swaroop Bairagi, Shriram Vaishnav and Shailendra Vaishnav are neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore

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)

disallowed the purchase made from father nor made any addition qua the gift received from father. Thus, the transactions of purchase and receipt of gift are not disturbed by AO. The AO has, however, made addition treating the deposit in bank a/c as unexplained whereas the source of deposit in bank a/c is very much available in Cash

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)

disallowed the purchase made from father nor made any addition qua the gift received from father. Thus, the transactions of purchase and receipt of gift are not disturbed by AO. The AO has, however, made addition treating the deposit in bank a/c as unexplained whereas the source of deposit in bank a/c is very much available in Cash

NOORUL HASAN BAIG,2013-14 vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 Noorul Hasan Baig, A.C.I.T., E-78, Koh-E-Fiza, 5(1), बनाम/ Bairagarh Road, Bhopal. Vs. Bhopal. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Afmpb1286N Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2023

cash of Rs. 6,00,000/- on 12.12.2012 from Axis Bank through self-cheque, therefore the same can be a source for making re-deposit of Rs. 4,00,000/- on 19.01.2013. 12. The above discussion brings us to conclude that the assessee has not been able to explain the source of Rs. 9,00,000/- deposited in HDFC Bank