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

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

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

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

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

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

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

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

SHRI KAMLESH 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

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

BIRENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,GWALIOR vs. ACIT 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

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

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

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

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

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

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

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

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

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

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

investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs.87

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

investment/ expenditure nor it had made any unaccounted receipts chargeable to tax. 5a). That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs.1,50,00,000/- made by the AO in the appellant’s income, on account of alleged unexplained cash credit under s.68

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

investment/ expenditure nor it had made any unaccounted receipts chargeable to tax. 5a). That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs.1,50,00,000/- made by the AO in the appellant’s income, on account of alleged unexplained cash credit under s.68

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)

unexplained investment in land. 12.1 Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A), at para (6.4) of the impugned order, noted that the Assessing Officer made the addition by relying on the observation that the assessee group is in continuous process of earning undisclosed income and has made reference to some

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)

unexplained investment in land. 12.1 Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A), at para (6.4) of the impugned order, noted that the Assessing Officer made the addition by relying on the observation that the assessee group is in continuous process of earning undisclosed income and has made reference to some

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)

unexplained investment in land. 12.1 Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A), at para (6.4) of the impugned order, noted that the Assessing Officer made the addition by relying on the observation that the assessee group is in continuous process of earning undisclosed income and has made reference to some

MAHENDRA KUMAR VERMA,INDORE vs. ITO-4(1), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 482/Ind/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) बनाम/ Mahendra Kumar Verma Ito-4(1) Flat No.301, Classic Indore Vs. Dream, 5-6, Paliwal Nagar, Indore (M.P.) -452011 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acspv2701P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri S. N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mongra, A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr 17/04/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 even when reopening was done without obtaining proper sanction from the competent authority as mandated by the provisions of section 151 of the Act 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition

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

reassessing the case under consideration, the AO has added Rs. 10,29,672/- on account of unexplained investment and issued