SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN YUVAK SANGH,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

unexplained cash credits even when the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings categorically explained that the said amount of cash deposit was made out of opening cash in hand as on 01-04-2012 generated during the previous Financial Year 2011-12 relevant to Assessment Year 2012-13 and therefore, addition, if any, could have been made during Assessment

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

unexplained funds in the form of cash credits. The burden so shifts on revenue to establish that such credits has actually come from Asseessee Company itself. However, as stated above, no evidence was available on record by which the department may reach to the conclusion that the unsecured loan money has been brought in the name of the loan creditor

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained

KHOJEMA BOHRA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

Appeals are allowed

unexplained credit, the loan\nappearing in the books of the appellant in the instant case also\nstands on similar set of facts as the credit worthiness of the\nlender has not been satisfactorily proved. The Court after\nanalyzing various facts and legal precedents held that\n\"The lower appellate authorities appear to have ignored the\ndetailed findings

SANDEEP KUMAR YADAV,BETUL vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHO

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshisandeep Kumar Yadav, Nfac, बना Palsyapalsya, Delhi म/ Palsya, Vs. The. Bhainsdehi, Betul (Pan: Afnpy3295D) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Unexplained Cash Credits and The learned CIT Appeals confirming the addition, without going in to the merits of the case. 8. That the above grounds are independent to each other”. Page 8 of 13 Sandeep Kumar Yadav ITA No. 501/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2013-14 3. Recording of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 21.04.2025 when none

SUNITA KALANTRI,INDORE vs. ADDL.,JT.,DEPUTY ACIT, NFAC

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisunita Kalantri Acit Fh-183 Scheme No.54 Nfac Vijay Nagar Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Acnpk4945P Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2024

unexplained cash credit U/s 69A of the Act from M/S R.S. Udhyog Ispat. 4 The Assessee craves to add/amend/alter/substitute to any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the case.” 2. Ld. AR of the assesse has submitted that the AO while framing the reassessment

M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOO HIGHWAY LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Prakash Asphaltings & Toll Acit (Central)-1 Of Highway (India) Ltd., Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, Central-1, Prakash Asphaltings & Indore Toll Of Highway (India) बनाम/ Ltd., 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee)

unexplained cash credit. During the course of appellate proceeding the AO vide letter F.No. ACIT(Cen)-1/Ind/ Remand Report/2017-18 dated 29.05.2017 has stated as under: i. The search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act were carried out on the business as well as residential premises of the Agroh group and PATH Group on 27.08.2014. ii. During

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS & TOLL HIGHWAYS (INDIA) LTD., MHOW

In the result, assessee’s ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Prakash Asphaltings & Toll Acit (Central)-1 Of Highway (India) Ltd., Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, Central-1, Prakash Asphaltings & Indore Toll Of Highway (India) बनाम/ Ltd., 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee)

unexplained cash credit. During the course of appellate proceeding the AO vide letter F.No. ACIT(Cen)-1/Ind/ Remand Report/2017-18 dated 29.05.2017 has stated as under: i. The search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act were carried out on the business as well as residential premises of the Agroh group and PATH Group on 27.08.2014. ii. During

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

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

credit u/s 68 of the Act and accordingly he added Rs.28,47,833/- and denied the benefit of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act at Rs.28,47,833/- and also made addition for estimated brokerage expenses of Rs.89,935/- for arranging bogus LTCG. Income assessed at Rs.45,17,920/- 8. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before

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

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

credit u/s 68 of the Act and accordingly he added Rs.28,47,833/- and denied the benefit of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act at Rs.28,47,833/- and also made addition for estimated brokerage expenses of Rs.89,935/- for arranging bogus LTCG. Income assessed at Rs.45,17,920/- 8. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before

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

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

credit u/s 68 of the Act and accordingly he added Rs.28,47,833/- and denied the benefit of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act at Rs.28,47,833/- and also made addition for estimated brokerage expenses of Rs.89,935/- for arranging bogus LTCG. Income assessed at Rs.45,17,920/- 8. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before

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

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

credit u/s 68 of the Act and accordingly he added Rs.28,47,833/- and denied the benefit of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act at Rs.28,47,833/- and also made addition for estimated brokerage expenses of Rs.89,935/- for arranging bogus LTCG. Income assessed at Rs.45,17,920/- 8. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before

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

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

credit u/s 68 of the Act and accordingly he added Rs.28,47,833/- and denied the benefit of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act at Rs.28,47,833/- and also made addition for estimated brokerage expenses of Rs.89,935/- for arranging bogus LTCG. Income assessed at Rs.45,17,920/- 8. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before

DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(1), INDORE

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

credit u/s 68 of the Act and accordingly he added Rs.28,47,833/- and denied the benefit of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act at Rs.28,47,833/- and also made addition for estimated brokerage expenses of Rs.89,935/- for arranging bogus LTCG. Income assessed at Rs.45,17,920/- 8. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before

MANISH KUMAR AGRAWAL,NEEMUCH vs. NFAC,DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

unexplained cash credit. The AO made an addition of this amount, and the CIT(A) upheld the assessment. The assessee appealed this decision.", "held": "The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate a crucial legal ground raised by the assessee and had not properly considered the submissions. Therefore, the matter was restored

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

unexplained cash credit under s.68 of the Act in respect of certain unsecured loans appearing in the audited balance sheet of the appellant company for the relevant previous year, without considering and appreciating the material fact that such issue was not the subject matter of notice under s.148 of the Act and further, during the course of the assessment proceedings