RAJAT DIWAKER INDIVIDUAL,BHOPAL vs. I.T.O. 2(2), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirajat Diwakar Ito-2(2) B-266, Shahpur Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adqpd9074N Assessee By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.02.2024

natural justice the assessee has also produced complete proof of payment made for purchase of the flat with supporting evidence of source of income. The payments have been verified by the AO both during the original assessment and also at the time of re-assessment and have not found any fault. He has pointed out that the flat was purchased

SMT MANORAMA SINGHAL,INDORE vs. ITO-3(2), INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Years: 2013-14

natural justice. Accordingly, the Appellant prays that the said addition be deleted. 6.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer determining total income at Rs.4526530/as against declared income of Rs. 880350/-, which is bad in law and excessive. 7.The Appellant craves leave

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

justice is that the assessee should have knowledge of the material that is going to be used against him so that he may be able to meet it. 6.7 The Ld. CIT-DR has submitted that the statement of Shri Chandrakant Mane & Shri Nirmal Singh Mertia (directors of FFSL) was confronted to the assessee by way of question

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

justice is that the assessee should have knowledge of the material that is going to be used against him so that he may be able to meet it. 6.7 The Ld. CIT-DR has submitted that the statement of Shri Chandrakant Mane & Shri Nirmal Singh Mertia (directors of FFSL) was confronted to the assessee by way of question

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

justice is that the assessee should have knowledge of the material that is going to be used against him so that he may be able to meet it. 6.7 The Ld. CIT-DR has submitted that the statement of Shri Chandrakant Mane & Shri Nirmal Singh Mertia (directors of FFSL) was confronted to the assessee by way of question

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

justice is that the assessee should have knowledge of the material that is going to be used against him so that he may be able to meet it. 6.7 The Ld. CIT-DR has submitted that the statement of Shri Chandrakant Mane & Shri Nirmal Singh Mertia (directors of FFSL) was confronted to the assessee by way of question

SHAILESH KALWADIA (HUF) ,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BPL-C-(91)(1), UJJAIN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 based solely on third-party information, without granting the assessee any opportunity for cross-examination or verification of such information, which is bad in law. 2. Addition of?18,42,978/-on Account of Alleged Bogus LTCG: The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of?18,42,978/- as unexplained income under

SHAILESH KALWADIA (HUF),UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BPL-C(91)(1), BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 based solely on third-party information, without granting the assessee any opportunity for cross-examination or verification of such information, which is bad in law. 2. Addition of?18,42,978/-on Account of Alleged Bogus LTCG: The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of?18,42,978/- as unexplained income under

ANJU JAIN, LR SUSHIL JAIN,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee; taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb is bad in law; penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment proceedings : though proceedings for imposition of penalty emanate from proceedings of assessment, they are independent

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee; taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb is bad in law; penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment proceedings : though proceedings for imposition of penalty emanate from proceedings of assessment, they are independent

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee; taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb is bad in law; penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment proceedings : though proceedings for imposition of penalty emanate from proceedings of assessment, they are independent

ANJU JAIN, LR SHRI SUSHIL JAIN ,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee; taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb is bad in law; penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment proceedings : though proceedings for imposition of penalty emanate from proceedings of assessment, they are independent

SHRI ROHIT SETHI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2008-09 Shri Rohit Sethi, Dcit, 62, Shiv Vilas Palace, 2(1), बनाम/ Rajwada, Indore. Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Appps9427R Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2024

natural justice. It has been further mentioned by the AO in the order that the A.R. of the appellant did not press for cross-examination but relied upon some another judgement of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Shri Pukhraj Soni. Page 9 of 12 Shri Rohit Sethi, Indore vs. DCIT,2(1), Indore. Assessment year

PRAYANK JAIN,INDORE vs. ACIT5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

natural justice. The addition made on the basis of such a document not confronted to assessee is illegal, void and the impugned order ought to be quashed. 4. Ld. AO has stated at page 2 that – “……..These transactions are accommodation entries mostly in lieu of cash of equal amount and commission charged over and above at certain fixed percentage

SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

natural justice. The addition made on the basis of such a document not confronted to assessee is illegal, void and the impugned order ought to be quashed. 4. Ld. AO has stated at page 2 that – “……..These transactions are accommodation entries mostly in lieu of cash of equal amount and commission charged over and above at certain fixed percentage

SAPAN SHAH,INDORE vs. ACIT-4(I), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

natural justice. The addition made on the basis of such a document not confronted to assessee is illegal, void and the impugned order ought to be quashed. 4. Ld. AO has stated at page 2 that – “……..These transactions are accommodation entries mostly in lieu of cash of equal amount and commission charged over and above at certain fixed percentage

GOVIND HARINARAYAN AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

natural justice. The addition made on the basis of such a document not confronted to assessee is illegal, void and the impugned order ought to be quashed. 4. Ld. AO has stated at page 2 that – “……..These transactions are accommodation entries mostly in lieu of cash of equal amount and commission charged over and above at certain fixed percentage

MANISH GOVIND AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

natural justice. The addition made on the basis of such a document not confronted to assessee is illegal, void and the impugned order ought to be quashed. 4. Ld. AO has stated at page 2 that – “……..These transactions are accommodation entries mostly in lieu of cash of equal amount and commission charged over and above at certain fixed percentage