MOJILAL RAJPUT,SHUJALPUR MANDI vs. ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

80C of the Act. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, the assessee duly filed the statements of bank accounts where it was found that the assessee had deposited Rs.24,49,626/- which was claimed as his and his family ITA Nos.20&21/Ind/2022 Mojilal Rajput vs. ITO&PCIT Asst. Year–2009-10 - 3 – members’ income from sale of agricultural crops

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SUJALPUR MANDI vs. THE ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

80C of the Act. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, the assessee duly filed the statements of bank accounts where it was found that the assessee had deposited Rs.24,49,626/- which was claimed as his and his family ITA Nos.20&21/Ind/2022 Mojilal Rajput vs. ITO&PCIT Asst. Year–2009-10 - 3 – members’ income from sale of agricultural crops

SHRI RAJPAL JAIN,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3 (3), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirajpal Jain Ito-3(3) Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Akypj 3794 L Assessee By Shri Girdhar Garg Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

section 80C. 5.Ground05. The levy of interest u/s 234-B & 234-C is arbitrary, illegal and bad-in-law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6.Ground06. That no proper and reasonable opportunity was given to the appellant to prove his case and lead evidence in support of his claim through the video conferencing. 7.Ground07

NARAYAN SINGH NAYAK,JHABUA vs. THE ITO 2, RATLAM

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Narayan Singh Nayak, Ito-2, बनाम/ 1, Ranu Colony, Ratlam Jhabua Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abapn9853D Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh & Shri Parth Jhavar, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 04.09.2023

section 263. This newer order is passed by ITO-2, Ratlam [“Ratlam ITO or AO”] wherein he made certain new additions. Aggrieved by this newer assessment order, the assessee went in first appeal to CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has noted, in Para No. 3 and 3.1 of appeal-order, that the notices of hearing were served upon assessee

SHRI MOHAN JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(2), UJJAIN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2014-15

80C in respect of PPF contribution. 3. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is obviously incorrect and perverse hence cost of this appeal be allowed exercising your discretion u/s 254(2B). 4. The appellant reserves right to add amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal as above. Prayer for Interim relief: a. The order

SHRI PRABHAT SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 50C of the Act of Rs.35,46,018/-. The A.O. made addition of Rs.3,70,000/- in respect of the loans taken from his children. Further, the A.O. made disallowance of interest paid on term loan of Rs.9,38,756/-, disallowance of agricultural income of Rs.2 lakhs, cash deposited in the bank of Rs.7 lakhs, purchase of shares

SHRI SUNIL SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE -2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 50C of the Act of Rs.35,46,018/-. The A.O. made addition of Rs.3,70,000/- in respect of the loans taken from his children. Further, the A.O. made disallowance of interest paid on term loan of Rs.9,38,756/-, disallowance of agricultural income of Rs.2 lakhs, cash deposited in the bank of Rs.7 lakhs, purchase of shares

RAJESH PRAJAPATI ,UJJAIN vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1) , UJJAIN

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2013-14 Shri Rajesh Prajapati, A.C.I.T., बनाम/ 15, Naliya Bakhal, Circle 2(1), Ujjain Ujjain Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Alnpp5190Q Assessee By Ms.Sonam Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

disallowed interest expenses of Rs. 44,32,883/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of I.T. Act and added to the total income of the assessee. (ii) That the ld. ACIT has withdrawn deduction of Rs. 1,00,000/- u/s 80C, Rs. 4,546/- u/s 80D, Rs. 2,500/- u/s 80G. Page 1 of 12 Shri Rajesh Prajapati, Ujjain, Assessment year

SHRI DWARKA PRASAD TAYAL ,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO , KHARGON

In the result appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2011-12

80C 1,00,000 Total taxable income 4,73,51,715 6. The appellant assessee has preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 15.01.2018 has allowed the following reliefs:- S.No Particulars Income as Addition Relief Addition as Income returned made by AO allowed by maintained finally

THE ITO , SENDHWA vs. SHRI DWARKA PRASAD TAYAL , SENDHWA

In the result appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2011-12

80C 1,00,000 Total taxable income 4,73,51,715 6. The appellant assessee has preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 15.01.2018 has allowed the following reliefs:- S.No Particulars Income as Addition Relief Addition as Income returned made by AO allowed by maintained finally

SANJAY SAHU,BHOPAL vs. THE TH4E ITO 2(1), BYHOPAL

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2010-11 Sanjay Sahu, Ito 2(1), H.No.98-A Sector, Bhopal बनाम/ Kasturba Nagar, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Apyps1707D Assessee By Shri Shashank Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

80C of the Act, amounting to Rs.45,271/-. 2. The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 1 year and 63 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by assessee’s affidavit on stamp. Referring to contents of same, Ld. AR narrated