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)

house property without appreciating the facts and evidences brought into light by the AO during assessment proceedings.” Grounds of appeal in IT(SS)ANo.22/Ind/2017, Shri Nitesh Chugh 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition Rs.2,08,00,000/- made by the AO on account of on-money

THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE vs. JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. That the impugned order so passed in this regard by Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) is illegal, and wrong. Revenue’s Appeals: IT(SS)A No.24/Ind/2023 - A.Y. 2013-14: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. That the impugned order so passed in this regard by Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) is illegal, and wrong. Revenue’s Appeals: IT(SS)A No.24/Ind/2023 - A.Y. 2013-14: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

house property. The DVO then proceeded in the matter and issued notice dated 25.01.2018 to assessee calling for certain details and documents and also supplied a format. In response, the assessee filed reply dated 02.02.2018 to DVO giving details and documents including a valuation- report of RV obtained by Bank of India for financing assessee’s property to show that

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

house property. The DVO then proceeded in the matter and issued notice dated 25.01.2018 to assessee calling for certain details and documents and also supplied a format. In response, the assessee filed reply dated 02.02.2018 to DVO giving details and documents including a valuation- report of RV obtained by Bank of India for financing assessee’s property to show that

MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. ACIT- (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

house property. The DVO then proceeded in the matter and issued notice dated 25.01.2018 to assessee calling for certain details and documents and also supplied a format. In response, the assessee filed reply dated 02.02.2018 to DVO giving details and documents including a valuation- report of RV obtained by Bank of India for financing assessee’s property to show that

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

unexplained money" received by the appellant against right to ITANo.451 to 454/Ind/2023 Anil Dhakad use business assets ie, petrol pump business owned by the appellant. The nature and source of the receipts the receipts of eipts of Rs. 7,80,000/- was fully explained and not doubted upon either by AO or by the Search Officers as it was evident

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, LOCATION

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

unexplained money" received by the appellant against right to ITANo.451 to 454/Ind/2023 Anil Dhakad use business assets ie, petrol pump business owned by the appellant. The nature and source of the receipts the receipts of eipts of Rs. 7,80,000/- was fully explained and not doubted upon either by AO or by the Search Officers as it was evident

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

unexplained money" received by the appellant against right to ITANo.451 to 454/Ind/2023 Anil Dhakad use business assets ie, petrol pump business owned by the appellant. The nature and source of the receipts the receipts of eipts of Rs. 7,80,000/- was fully explained and not doubted upon either by AO or by the Search Officers as it was evident

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. AASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

unexplained money" received by the appellant against right to ITANo.451 to 454/Ind/2023 Anil Dhakad use business assets ie, petrol pump business owned by the appellant. The nature and source of the receipts the receipts of eipts of Rs. 7,80,000/- was fully explained and not doubted upon either by AO or by the Search Officers as it was evident

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

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

house\nHarpreet Kaur\nITA No. 730/Ind/2024 – AY 2009-10\nproperty, profits and gains of business or profession, capital gains\nand income from other sources, that is to say, that the money, bullion,\netc., found, of which the assessee is the owner, for which there was no\nsatisfactory explanation, could be deemed to be the income under any\none of these

ANIL FIROJIYA,BHAKT NAGAR UJJAIN vs. DY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYKAR BHAWAN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Anil Firojiya, Dy. Commissioner Of 6, Bhakt Nagar, Income-Tax, बनाम/ Dashera Maidan, Assessment Unit, Vs. Ujjain New Delhi (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaipf7302A Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2024

unexplained investment. A plain reading of assessment order reveals that the case of the assessee is reopened u/s 147 of the Act as the appellant assessee was involved in cash transaction of Rs. 10,29,672/- towards the construction of house at 68, Mahesh Vihar, Ujjain. 7.1 It is observed from the assessment order that the appellant assessee had furnished

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

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from "other sources" because the provisions of Sections 69, 694, 69B and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money

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

house property, profit and gains of business or profession or capital gains nor the income from other sources. 4.3 In view of the above, contentions of the assessee are not found tenable and therefore, amount of Rs. 58,78,145/- in form of excess stock, Rs. 52,86,831/-in form of sales and not recorded in its regular books

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

SHRI SUBHASH ARORA,RAISEN vs. THE ITO 2(5), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Subhash Arora, Ito, Hig 9/B, Ishan Park, 5(2), Patel Nagar, Bhopal बनाम/ Raisen Road, Bhopal Vs.

unexplained money u/s 69A and made addition. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and contested. 4. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) noted submissions of assessee and although granted part-relief of Rs. 1,28,000/- out of the addition of Rs. 15,53,000/- but upheld addition of Rs. 14,25,000/- for which the assessee claimed

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

unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 without properly appreciating the facts of the case and submissions filed by the appellant even when source of cash deposit was duly explained during the course of assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings itself. 2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

money (2012) issued by Ministry of Finance cited that Agriculture contributes around 14 per cent of the country's GDP. AO is mandated by law to see evidences before arriving at conclusion. No where in Income Tax Act, 1961 says that for agricultural income, AO needs no evidence. It has been held by the Apex Court