SHRI RAJEEV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

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

cash Sanjay Kumar Sinha,Anjana Sinha, Rajiv Sharma & Manju Sharma IT(SS)No.150 to 170/Ind/2017 deposits were made on the basis of bank account details called for during the course of assessment proceedings and it is an admitted fact that these bank accounts were disclosed in the regular return of income filed by the assessee. Similarly deemed dividend

SMT. MANJU SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

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

cash Sanjay Kumar Sinha,Anjana Sinha, Rajiv Sharma & Manju Sharma IT(SS)No.150 to 170/Ind/2017 deposits were made on the basis of bank account details called for during the course of assessment proceedings and it is an admitted fact that these bank accounts were disclosed in the regular return of income filed by the assessee. Similarly deemed dividend

SMT ANJANA SINHA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

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

cash Sanjay Kumar Sinha,Anjana Sinha, Rajiv Sharma & Manju Sharma IT(SS)No.150 to 170/Ind/2017 deposits were made on the basis of bank account details called for during the course of assessment proceedings and it is an admitted fact that these bank accounts were disclosed in the regular return of income filed by the assessee. Similarly deemed dividend

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

cash deposits in bank account. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in enhancing the addition by Rs.34,800/- on account of agriculture income of Rs.2,34,800/- shown by the assessee out of Rs.2,34,800/- A.O. has already added Rs.2,00,000/- under the head unexplained deposits in bank account

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

cash deposits in bank account. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in enhancing the addition by Rs.34,800/- on account of agriculture income of Rs.2,34,800/- shown by the assessee out of Rs.2,34,800/- A.O. has already added Rs.2,00,000/- under the head unexplained deposits in bank account

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

House property, Share of profit and income from other sources. Survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act was carried out at the premises of M/s Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre (In short BHRC) on 24.09.2011. During the course of survey proceedings certain discrepancies were noticed. Incriminating material in the form of Hundis were found and impounded. The assessee in his individual

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

House property, Share of profit and income from other sources. Survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act was carried out at the premises of M/s Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre (In short BHRC) on 24.09.2011. During the course of survey proceedings certain discrepancies were noticed. Incriminating material in the form of Hundis were found and impounded. The assessee in his individual

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

House property, Share of profit and income from other sources. Survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act was carried out at the premises of M/s Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre (In short BHRC) on 24.09.2011. During the course of survey proceedings certain discrepancies were noticed. Incriminating material in the form of Hundis were found and impounded. The assessee in his individual

THE DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SHRI ASHISH NIGAM, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit Central-1 Ashish Nigam Indore 15, Bada Sarafa Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Ablpn6361M Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain, Ar Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.07.2024

property transaction which, by its very nature, are received early and on completion of such transaction? c) It amounts to accepting an untenable position that a huge cash amount was kept by assessee as idle while various bank transactions were carried out during the period for more than three years and cash was deposited during demonetization period only

SHRI NARENDRA TRIPATHI,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT-CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

housing society without accepting the explanation offered by the assessee that the said plot was purchased in AY 2006-07 i.e. beyond the block period and only registry was executed in the year and during the course of search, no any incriminating documents was found from which it could be established that any on money was paid on the purchase

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

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

property tax deposited by her for this house substantiating her claim that construction was completed within the permissible time limit. 2.5 She also tried to justify the allowability of her claim made u/s Sec.54. Having gone through the submissions filed by the assessee ex facie some merits was found as regards the claim of LTCG and allowability

ATUL KUMAR ANCHALIA,JAORA vs. PCIT-1 , INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

deposit in the savings bank account remained unproved. The assessee filed its Return of Income in ITR-1 which is meant for income from Pension/Salary, Income from one House Property, but a person engaged in any business cannot file the return in form ITR-1. This clearly proves 3 I.TA No. 63/IND/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No Atul Kumar Anchalia

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

ANIL KHILWANI,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) II, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

house based on the report of the DVO. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the assessee the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) was not justified in holding that the A.O. was justified in holding that the source of cash of Rs.1,80,000/- deposited by the assessee in his bank account

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

SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR SETHI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result appeal filed by the revenue being I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

deposit in the account of the assessee is concerned. The assessee can be considered to have explained by bringing the material on record in the shape of confirmations, bank account and income tax numbers of that person. Thus the assessee had filed ample evidence to discharge the burden cast upon him and the Ld. Assessing Officer has not brought

THE ACIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR SETHI, INDORE

In the result appeal filed by the revenue being I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

deposit in the account of the assessee is concerned. The assessee can be considered to have explained by bringing the material on record in the shape of confirmations, bank account and income tax numbers of that person. Thus the assessee had filed ample evidence to discharge the burden cast upon him and the Ld. Assessing Officer has not brought