SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA PARASHAR,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI VINOD VAISH, BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHARY,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

SHRI KAMLESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

BIRENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,GWALIOR vs. ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH DHARIWAL,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA,DABRA vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

SHRI KHEMRAJ SINGH CHAUHAN,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

SHRI LALTA PRASAD CHOUDHARY,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SAHU,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

JCIT OSD (CENTRAL)-1, RATLAM vs. SHRI KANTILAL KATARIA, RATLAM

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

investment in land on the basis of incriminating documents found & seized from the assessee’s premises. 4.On the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,60,000/- made by AO on account of sale of land on the basis of incriminating documents found & seized from the assessee

ACIT (CENTRAL) 1 INDORE , INDORE vs. SHRI KANTILAL KATARIA, RATLAM

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

investment in land on the basis of incriminating documents found & seized from the assessee’s premises. 4.On the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,60,000/- made by AO on account of sale of land on the basis of incriminating documents found & seized from the assessee

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

disallowance can be made separately under s. 40A(3). That Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Rastogi vs CIT as reported in 100 CTR 204 has held that [ refer preamble] "For recalling its finding, the Appellate Tribunal has not relied upon or referred to any document and addition of Rs. 50,000 as unexplained investment

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

disallowance can be made separately under s. 40A(3). That Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Rastogi vs CIT as reported in 100 CTR 204 has held that [ refer preamble] "For recalling its finding, the Appellate Tribunal has not relied upon or referred to any document and addition of Rs. 50,000 as unexplained investment

M/S SUPREMO INDIA LTD ,INDORE vs. THE AIT CENTRAL 3, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

unexplained investment made addition of Rs. 1,41,75,568/- to the income of the appellant u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 4.1.1 The appellant during the course of appellate proceedings has stated that an excess stock of gold was found during the course of search and the same was also not recorded in regular books of accounts, thereby

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE vs. FERRO CONCRETE CON INDIA PVT. LTD., INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Ferro Concrete Con India Income-Tax Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ 3/5/7B, Bhagirathpura Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaacf2726K Revenueby Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Date Of Hearing 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026

disallowance of Rs. 84,76,000/- u/s 69 of the I.T. Act as unexplained investments. Accordingly, the disallowance of Rs. 84,76,000/- is hereby