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

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,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

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

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

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

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

M/S SURJEET AUTO AGENCY ,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-2, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2015-16 M/S Surjeet Auto Agency, Pr. Cit-2, 4-5, Lajpat Nagar, Raisen Bhopal बनाम/ Road, Apsara Cinema, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aatfs 4110J Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Piush Parasar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’ For Short) By Ld. Pr. Cit-2 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 04.02.2020.The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

disallowable, whereas, in Audit Report details of payment made are required to be mentioned. iii. As regards, higher turnover return in Service Tax Return as compared to ITR and alleged deposit of large amount of cash

SADHNA AJMERA,NEEMUCH vs. THE ITO, NEEMUCH

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisadhana Ajmera Ito 03, Bhageshwar Mandir Neemuch Vs. Raod Neemuch (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Acypa0152 H Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2023

disallowance of addition of Rs.2,96,760/- on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account has rejected the claim

SHRI M A KHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) It(Ss)A Nos.37 To 42/Ind/2015 & Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2010-11 Late M.A. Khan Acit 3(1) (Through L/H Nazhat Bhopal Parveen Khan) बनाम/ B-90, Housing Board, Vs. Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan:Aewpk 3620 C Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Shri Vijay Bansal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

disallowance could be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers u/s 153A and earlier assessment should have to be reiterated. This later decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has also been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissing Revenue’s SLP in PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia Page 5 of 39 Late M.A. Khan

INCOME TAX OFFICER-5(5), INDORE vs. SHRI RAJEEV SAREEN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito-5(5) Shri Rajeev Sareen Indore Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Rajeev Sareen Ito-5(5) Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aswps 1142 D Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17.10.2022

cash-deposits in Bank A/c; (ii) agricultural income of Rs. 5,04,360/- was not accepted; and (iii) Development expenses of Rs. 31,83,223/- claimed by assessee as business-deduction were disallowed

RAJIV SARIN,INDORE vs. ITO WARD 5 (5), INDORE

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito-5(5) Shri Rajeev Sareen Indore Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Rajeev Sareen Ito-5(5) Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aswps 1142 D Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17.10.2022

cash-deposits in Bank A/c; (ii) agricultural income of Rs. 5,04,360/- was not accepted; and (iii) Development expenses of Rs. 31,83,223/- claimed by assessee as business-deduction were disallowed

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

cash in hand that the bank statement do not show such heavy deposit for the last financial year. Once it is matter of record that the deposits were made on 4th April 2016 then obviously it would not be found deposited on 31.03.2016. Once the entire record was produced before the AO who has Page 17 of 32 Sewa Sahakari

ACIT (CENTRAL) , UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S GLOBUS HOUSING PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central) M/S. Globus Housing Pvt. Ltd. 176, Zone-Ii, First Floor, M.P. Ujjain Vs. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Aaecg 0623 J Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Yash Kukreja, Ars Date Of Hearing 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

disallowance u/s 68 cannot be made on the ground that the source of third person has not been proved satisfactory due to cash deposit