SHEETAL KAUSHAL,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 5(2), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member)

House No. 9C, v. ITO-5(2), Indrapuri Raisen Road, Bhopal M.P. Bittan Market, Bhopal, Pin. 462022 M.P. PAN-AQOPK6965C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Smt. Nisha Lahoti, CA Respondent by: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 01.03.2023 Date of pronouncement: 22.03.2023 O R D E R SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed

SHRI PRADEEP MAHESHWARI HUF,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

house property, capital gain and income from other sources. Income of Rs.46,16,412/- declared in the income tax return submitted on 31.07.2010. Return filed were processed u/s 143(1). Case selected for scrutiny. Statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act duly served upon the assessee. While scrutinizing the details the learned Assessing Officer (In short `Ld.A.O’) observed that

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

house property, capital gain and income from other sources. Income of Rs.46,16,412/- declared in the income tax return submitted on 31.07.2010. Return filed were processed u/s 143(1). Case selected for scrutiny. Statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act duly served upon the assessee. While scrutinizing the details the learned Assessing Officer (In short `Ld.A.O’) observed that

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

house property, capital gain and income from other sources. Income of Rs.46,16,412/- declared in the income tax return submitted on 31.07.2010. Return filed were processed u/s 143(1). Case selected for scrutiny. Statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act duly served upon the assessee. While scrutinizing the details the learned Assessing Officer (In short `Ld.A.O’) observed that

MOHAMMAD ZAHOOR QURESHI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-4(2), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Paresh M Joshi & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2014-15 Mohammad Zahoor Ito 4(2), Qureshi, Bhopal House No.956, Bagh Farhat Afza Gate Ke Andar, बनाम/ Gali No.2, Vs. Near Rajesh Cycle Aishbagh Stadium, Bhopal

House No.956, Bagh Farhat Afza Gate Ke Andar, बनाम/ Gali No.2, Vs. Near Rajesh Cycle Aishbagh Stadium, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AACPQ2965Q Assessee by Shri Rakesh Choudhary, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 17.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.: This is an appeal filed

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

property) b. Certificate of approval u/s 80G of the institutions to whom donations were made, which- means she had verified the deductions claimed.- c. Details of disallowance of excess interest u/s 57 d. Details of amounts appearing in 26AS Statement 4. Further the A.O had - in its show cause notice dt./ 18/03/2015 also mentioned interest amount

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

property) b. Certificate of approval u/s 80G of the institutions to whom donations were made, which- means she had verified the deductions claimed.- c. Details of disallowance of excess interest u/s 57 d. Details of amounts appearing in 26AS Statement 4. Further the A.O had - in its show cause notice dt./ 18/03/2015 also mentioned interest amount

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

property) b. Certificate of approval u/s 80G of the institutions to whom donations were made, which- means she had verified the deductions claimed.- c. Details of disallowance of excess interest u/s 57 d. Details of amounts appearing in 26AS Statement 4. Further the A.O had - in its show cause notice dt./ 18/03/2015 also mentioned interest amount

M/S. BHOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,DEWAS vs. THE ITO, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

144.]” 3.2.14 As per the provisions of section 145(3), if AO is not satisfied about the correctness of the account he can invoked the provisions of section 145(3). It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. A. Krishna Swami Mudliyar (1964) 53 ITR 122 (SC) held that: “ Section 145 does not compel

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

144.]” 3.2.14 As per the provisions of section 145(3), if AO is not satisfied about the correctness of the account he can invoked the provisions of section 145(3). It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. A. Krishna Swami Mudliyar (1964) 53 ITR 122 (SC) held that: “ Section 145 does not compel

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

144.]” 3.2.14 As per the provisions of section 145(3), if AO is not satisfied about the correctness of the account he can invoked the provisions of section 145(3). It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. A. Krishna Swami Mudliyar (1964) 53 ITR 122 (SC) held that: “ Section 145 does not compel

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE LTD., DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

144.]” 3.2.14 As per the provisions of section 145(3), if AO is not satisfied about the correctness of the account he can invoked the provisions of section 145(3). It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. A. Krishna Swami Mudliyar (1964) 53 ITR 122 (SC) held that: “ Section 145 does not compel

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

144.]” 3.2.14 As per the provisions of section 145(3), if AO is not satisfied about the correctness of the account he can invoked the provisions of section 145(3). It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. A. Krishna Swami Mudliyar (1964) 53 ITR 122 (SC) held that: “ Section 145 does not compel

M/S BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,DEWAS vs. THE ITO, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

144.]” 3.2.14 As per the provisions of section 145(3), if AO is not satisfied about the correctness of the account he can invoked the provisions of section 145(3). It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. A. Krishna Swami Mudliyar (1964) 53 ITR 122 (SC) held that: “ Section 145 does not compel

M/S BHOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,DEWAS vs. THE ACIT 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

144.]” 3.2.14 As per the provisions of section 145(3), if AO is not satisfied about the correctness of the account he can invoked the provisions of section 145(3). It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. A. Krishna Swami Mudliyar (1964) 53 ITR 122 (SC) held that: “ Section 145 does not compel

THE ITO, WARD 3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. T.LOGIKS, INDORE

In the result, all the grounds raised in appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

144 of the Act, thereby making various additions totaling to Rs.2,46,24,636/- and assessing the income at Rs.2,75,06,696/-. M/s. T. Logiks ITANo.304/Ind/2017 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. 5. Now the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the deletion of addition

HIMANSHU BOTADEARA HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

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

house property, income from business or profession, income from capital gain and income from other sources. There is no dispute that the assessee is doing trading in the shares through its Demat account the copies of which were filed by the Ld. Counsel of the assesse as directed by the bench. On going through the details of Demat account with

HIMANSHU BOTADEARA HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

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

house property, income from business or profession, income from capital gain and income from other sources. There is no dispute that the assessee is doing trading in the shares through its Demat account the copies of which were filed by the Ld. Counsel of the assesse as directed by the bench. On going through the details of Demat account with