HARPREET KAUR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 5(2), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

deposits. Her husband died on November 16, 1983, and she\ninherited the immovable property known as \"RELE NIWAS\" at 22, D.L. Vaidya\nRoad, Dadar, Bombay-28. This property was partly rented and partly self-\noccupied. This property was sold to one Vadilal Maru for a consideration of Rs.\n1 lakh as stated in the document of sale. This sale took

GYAN PRAKASH TIWARI,RAJGARH vs. ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradgyan Prakash Tiwari, Income Tax Officer, Talab Mohalla Chhapiheda, Shajapur Vs. Rajgarh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abupt8470C Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Nerkar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025 O R D E R

deposit she withdrew cash of Rs.3,00,000/- on 05.05.2008 and also other withdrawals from other bank accounts as well as accumulated savings. The Income Tax Return duly support this contention. I am therefore satisfied that the assessee’s wife had sufficient creditworthiness to give cash of Rs.6,00,000/- to her husband and same in the shape of cash

KUSUMLATA GARG,INDORE vs. DCIT ACIT 3 (1) INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

deposit. While contending so, the assessee is relying upon\nCash-Book filed by her to AO. The said Cash-Book was also filed to CIT(A).\nThe Cash-Book shows closing cash balance of Rs.99,95,140/- as on\n31.03.2016 and the same balance is carried to next year as opening cash\nbalance on 01.04.2016. This cash balance of Rs.99

SHRI HEMANT PANDYA ,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(2), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Hemant Pandya, Ito-3(2), बनाम/ 139, Prabhu Nagar, Bhopal Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Ajgpp 7486 G Assessee By Shri V.N. Dubey, Shri Ibrahim Kannodwala, Adv. & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.05.2023

property in cash and that is why he made cash gift to assessee. Regarding gifts received from mother and grandmother, Ld. AR submitted that they were ladies who generally keep certain cash with them and out of cash so held, they made gifts to assessee; there is nothing wrong in cash gifts. 8. Regarding another observation of CIT(A) that

ACIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY MEHTA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit (Central)-1, Shri Sanjay Mehta, बनाम/ Bhopal Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Agepm2676G Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Sanjay Mehta, Dcit (Central)-1, बनाम/ Indore Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Agepm2676G Assessee By Shri Sanjay Mehta, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 .03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

house Rs.49,48,500/- iii. On account of cash payment against the purchase of property Rs.1,21,00,000/- iv. On account of cash deposit

SUDHA LUHADIA,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE ITO - 4(5), INDORE, INDORE, M.P.

In the result, the impugned order is upheld

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisudha Luhadia, Indore The Ito-4(5), बनाम/ C/O S.V. Agrawal & Indore Vs. Associates, 25, Joy Builders Colony, Near Rafael Tower, Old Palasia, Indore (Mp) (Pan: Abapl5445M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

deposits during the demonetization period. That the Ld. Assessing Officer while passing the “impugned assessment order” doubted the source of cash as explained by the Assessee but allowed the accumulation of cash to the tune of Rs. 3 lakh and balance amount of Rs.500000 was added to the total income of the assessee. Our attention was invited to page

CHANDRA SAHU,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(4), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

deposit of cash in savings bank account from undisclosed income. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A)-I, Bhopal erred in not considering the facts and documents available on record in proper perspective. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A)-I, Bhopal erred

CHANDRA SAHU,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(4), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

deposit of cash in savings bank account from undisclosed income. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A)-I, Bhopal erred in not considering the facts and documents available on record in proper perspective. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A)-I, Bhopal erred

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:-

Housing Projects Ltd – [2012] 20 taxmann.com 587(Delhi) Surjeet Auto Agency 8. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) referred to the finding of Ld. Pr. CIT and also decisions referred in the impugned order by the Ld. Pr. CIT and the same is mentioned below: 4. I have carefully consider d the facts of the case, the show cause notices

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

house property, income from business and profession and agricultural income of Rs.68,990/-. The AO while making disallowance of addition of Rs.2,96,760/- on account of unexplained cash deposit

SHRI MUKESH KUMAR JAIN ,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(5), INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain Ito 3(5) बनाम Indore Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) /Vs. Pan: Adhpj 6674 M Assessee By Shri A.G. Shastri, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

house-property and other sources. For the relevant assessment-year 2017-18, the assessee submitted return declaring a total income of Rs. 4,56,580/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason of cash-deposits

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

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 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by a consolidated appeal-order dated 28.11.2014 passed by learned Commissioner

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 deposited by the assessee. Therefore, it is contrary to the guidelines as mandated in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO Vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (supra) coupled with the fact that the assessee during the assessment proceedings had submitted evidences in support of sale of jewelleries and receipt of gift. Moreover, the issue

LATE SMT. MARIAM BAI (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI ABDUL RAZAK CHARA),INDORE (M.P.) vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER - 4(3), INDORE, INDORE (M.P.)

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Mariam Bai (Through Income Tax Officer 4(3), Legal Heir Shri Abdul Razak Indore Chara), Vs. 12, Daulaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Advpc5505A Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2024 O R D E R

property during the financial year 2013-14 and during the year under consideration Rs.2.06 crores was received by account payee cheque on 15.5.2015. Subsequently out of the available bank balance in Bank of India S.B. account Rs.1 crore was transferred to another bank account of assessee held with Axis Bank. Thereafter when the assessee was required to deposit

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

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

property already took place on 07.01.2011. The seized document is entirely silent about the 9 IT(SS) No.30 & 31/Ind/2023 ITA (SS) No.305/Ind/2023 Shailendra Sharma transaction whether it is a payment or receipt. The addition made by the A.O in respect of other notings in the seized document has been deleted by the CIT(A) in para No. 3.6.2 as under

NEMICHAND JAIN,KALANI NAGAR, INDORE vs. ITO 4(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2017-18 Nemichand Jain Ito 4(1) 2, Airport Road, Indore बनाम/ Kalani Nagar Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abjpj8164A Assessee By Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2025

house property , income as a teacher ( tuition ) and bank interest . During demonitization period the assessee deposited cash amounting to Rs. 14,16,000/- into

ANIL KUMAR GUPTA,BHOPAL vs. ITO, 4(3), BHOPAL, OFFICE OF ITO BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Property Tax receipts for A.Y. 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and\n2018-19 (PB 120-123)\nc. An application in this regard is pressed before your honours. It is\ntherefore prayed that the additional evidences which are clinching\nevidences; and supporting the stand of the assessee that a\nresidential house was let out may kindly be taken on record

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

cash was deposited prior to issuance of the cheques to the appellant. The appellant therefore discharged the onus lying on him and no contrary finding was given by the Sanjay Lunawat ITA No.396/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.32/Ind/2018 assessing officer on these documents even in remand proceeding. I, therefore, direct the assessing officer to delete the addition