SHREERAM CONSTRUCTIONS,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result we are of the considered opinion that the

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishreeram Construction, Commissioner Of बनाम/ Shop No.2,New Shri Ram Income-Tax Vs. Parisar, Phase I Khajuri Kala, (Appeals) Bhopal, Bhopal (Pan:Abgfs5939P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Govind Rinwa, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

demonetization added u/s. 69A of the Act Rs. 15,50,000/- ii) Other credits in Bank Account added u/s. 69A of the Act Rs. 6,79,15,359/- Total Disallowances

LOVEKESH PATIL,BURHANPUR vs. CIT APPEALS, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Lovekesh Patil, Ito, House No. 204/1, Burhanpur बनाम/ Village - Turak Gurada, Vs. District – Burhanpur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Dhnpp1752B Assessee By Assessee In Person Revenue By Shri K.Bala Murli Krishna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024

disallowing cash withdrawal of assessment year 2016-17. 7. That the Ld. CIA(A() has erred in not considering that in assessment order for assessment year 2017-18 dated 07.12.2019 there was not a single reference of assessment year 2015-16. Hence addition in assessment year 2015-16 for demonetization

RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Rajendra Kumar Dcit/Acit-2(1), Gupta, Bhopal B-72, Mansarovar, बनाम/ Shahpura, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaypg6045M Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2024

disallowance @ 30% of lease rent claimed u/s 24(1) of the Act without considering the facts properly and without appreciating that the rent received is for structure constructed under lease agreement and not for open land. (4) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in maintaining the addition of Rs. 7,72,360/- on account of restaurant sale. The addition

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

demonetization. The assessee has contended that similar deposits were made in the earlier years also before the undersigned. However, no such details of earlier years were furnished by the assessee nor were called by the AO. Most notably, it is seen that during the course of assessment proceeding, the AO had called for all the bank statements of the assessee

HARDA NAGAR BAL VIKAS SAMITI HARDA ,SARSWATI SHISHU MANDIR vs. ITO-1, HARDA, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms mentioned above

demonetization period and on finding that the assessee has not filed any return of AY 2017-18, issued a notice dated 27.12.2017 u/s 142(1)(i) requiring the assessee to file return of income of AY 2017-18. However, the assessee did not file any return. Then, the AO took assessee's case for assessment u/s 144. During proceedings

BHARTIYA AADARSH SHIKSHAN SAMITI,MANDSAUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose, subject\nto payment of cost of Rs

disallowing the exemption u/s. 11 of the Act by\nthe Ld. AO, CPC is wrong and is liable to be deleted.\"\nThe background facts leading to present appeal are as under:\n(i)\nThe assessee is a society engaged in charitable purpose of advancing\neducation. For AY 2018-19, the assessee filed return of income u/s\n139 on 07.01.2019 belatedly

SCIENCE FORUM FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH,GRAM MINDIA, SANVER ROAD vs. CIT(A), UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2017-18

demonetization period and for the entire year under consideration. 2.5 That the assessee submitted that the society is engaged in educational activities and is running school in the name and style of “Takshshila Junior College”. That all the cash receipts are on account of fees received from the students. That the assessee is also registered

SHRI GUPTNATH BAL SHIKSHAN SAMITI MACHALPUR,MACHALPUR vs. ITO WARD RAJGARH, RAJGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in\nterms mentioned above

demonetization period, issued notice u/s 142(1) calling the assessee\nto file return but the same remained uncompiled by assessee. During\nfurther proceedings, the assessee filed audited accounts (Para 2 of\nassessment-order), however, the follow-up notices issued by AO u/s 142(1)\nalso remained uncompiled by assessee. Ultimately, the AO issued a summon\nu/s 131 to the President

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)

demonetization by the Government of India. He also submitted that the assessee has raised sale bills against the said advances in the name of respective customers. Since the transaction was less than Rs.2.00 lakhs, it was stated that the assessee did not collect complete details of the customers. Thus, it is seen that the advance amount collected from customers

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)

demonetization by the Government of India. He also submitted that the assessee has raised sale bills against the said advances in the name of respective customers. Since the transaction was less than Rs.2.00 lakhs, it was stated that the assessee did not collect complete details of the customers. Thus, it is seen that the advance amount collected from customers

SANDEEP KUMAR MUNDRA ,BURHANPUR vs. ITO, BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

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

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisandeep Kumar Mundra, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ S.K. Enterprises, Burhanpur Vs. Kalabagh Emagrid, Burhanpur (Pan:Abtpm8551C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Manoj Phadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

demonetization period u/s 68 of the Act. Further addition of Rs.1,54,841/- was made on account of excess claim of loss on house property. That the aforesaid assessment order bears No.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019- 20/1023162769(1) dated 26.12.2019 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers