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

131 to any of the creditors which is evident from the, assessment order itself. Moreover, it is also clear from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer had never asked the assessee to produce the creditors. Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 17.As per requirement of Section 68 the sum credited in the books of accounts can be considered

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

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

131 assessee 5.3 Copy of bank statement of the unsecured loan creditor duly highlighting the 132 amount as advanced to the assessee 6 The IESM Academy [PAN: AAEFT4206F] – Addition of Rs. 32,00,000/- 6.1 Copy of ledger account of the creditor in the books of the assessee 133- 134 6.2 Copy of ledger account of the assessee

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

131 ITR 597 (SC) wherein it has been held that the onus lies on the Revenue to establish that an assessee has understated the consideration for transfer of an immovable property and unless such onus is discharged by the Revenue, there cannot be any presumption as regard to the understatement. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) held that no effort

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

131 ITR 597 (SC) wherein it has been held that the onus lies on the Revenue to establish that an assessee has understated the consideration for transfer of an immovable property and unless such onus is discharged by the Revenue, there cannot be any presumption as regard to the understatement. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) held that no effort

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

131 ITR 597 (SC) wherein it has been held that the onus lies on the Revenue to establish that an assessee has understated the consideration for transfer of an immovable property and unless such onus is discharged by the Revenue, there cannot be any presumption as regard to the understatement. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) held that no effort

M/S BANSAL EXTRACTION & EXPORT P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Bansal Extraction & Dcit Export Pvt. Ltd. Central-1 3Rd Floor Tawa Complex, Bittan Bhopal Vs. Market E-4, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aadcb 7521 M Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2023

131(1) The Assessing Officer Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Joint Commissioner. Commissioner (Appeals), Chief Commissioner or Commissioner and the Dispute Resolution Panel referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (15) of section 144C shall, for the purposes of this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

house property, business etc. That, besides admitting the total undisclosed income of Rs.15,89,76,375/-, as aforesaid, during the course of recording the another statement under s. 132(4), of real brother of the appellant namely Shri G.S. Bhatia on 26-10-2007, Shri G.S. Bhatia, on the appellant's request and instruction and acting as appellant's lawful

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

house property, profits & gains of business and profession, income from share in profits of firm and income from other sources. The return for the AY 2010-11 was filed by appellant on 17.03.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 4,49,440/-. On 12.07.2016, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on Jain & Dixit Group. Certain

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

house property and consequently claiming exemption under Section 54, the seller filed the computation of income paying Rs.1,83,576/- as tax, which was quite evident from the conflicting statements given by the seller and the conflicting I.T. Returns filed by him that his action of admitting sale consideration and paying tax was nothing but an obvious effort to save

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

house property and consequently claiming exemption under Section 54, the seller filed the computation of income paying Rs.1,83,576/- as tax, which was quite evident from the conflicting statements given by the seller and the conflicting I.T. Returns filed by him that his action of admitting sale consideration and paying tax was nothing but an obvious effort to save

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

house property and consequently claiming exemption under Section 54, the seller filed the computation of income paying Rs.1,83,576/- as tax, which was quite evident from the conflicting statements given by the seller and the conflicting I.T. Returns filed by him that his action of admitting sale consideration and paying tax was nothing but an obvious effort to save

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

house property and consequently claiming exemption under Section 54, the seller filed the computation of income paying Rs.1,83,576/- as tax, which was quite evident from the conflicting statements given by the seller and the conflicting I.T. Returns filed by him that his action of admitting sale consideration and paying tax was nothing but an obvious effort to save

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

house property and consequently claiming exemption under Section 54, the seller filed the computation of income paying Rs.1,83,576/- as tax, which was quite evident from the conflicting statements given by the seller and the conflicting I.T. Returns filed by him that his action of admitting sale consideration and paying tax was nothing but an obvious effort to save

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

house property and consequently claiming exemption under Section 54, the seller filed the computation of income paying Rs.1,83,576/- as tax, which was quite evident from the conflicting statements given by the seller and the conflicting I.T. Returns filed by him that his action of admitting sale consideration and paying tax was nothing but an obvious effort to save

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

house property and consequently claiming exemption under Section 54, the seller filed the computation of income paying Rs.1,83,576/- as tax, which was quite evident from the conflicting statements given by the seller and the conflicting I.T. Returns filed by him that his action of admitting sale consideration and paying tax was nothing but an obvious effort to save

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

house property and consequently claiming exemption under Section 54, the seller filed the computation of income paying Rs.1,83,576/- as tax, which was quite evident from the conflicting statements given by the seller and the conflicting I.T. Returns filed by him that his action of admitting sale consideration and paying tax was nothing but an obvious effort to save

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

house property and consequently claiming exemption under Section 54, the seller filed the computation of income paying Rs.1,83,576/- as tax, which was quite evident from the conflicting statements given by the seller and the conflicting I.T. Returns filed by him that his action of admitting sale consideration and paying tax was nothing but an obvious effort to save

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

house property and consequently claiming exemption under Section 54, the seller filed the computation of income paying Rs.1,83,576/- as tax, which was quite evident from the conflicting statements given by the seller and the conflicting I.T. Returns filed by him that his action of admitting sale consideration and paying tax was nothing but an obvious effort to save