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. 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

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

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

LAKHMICHAND VASWANI,INDORE vs. ITO WARD 1(4), INDORE, INDORE

In the result ITA No:-653/Ind/2025 and \"Impugned order\"\ntherein is set aside as and by way of remand to Ld

addition of Rs. 1,77,700/- as unexplained investment is justified and whether the reassessment proceedings and the impugned order were legally valid and properly served."}} }

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

reassessment- proceedings initiated by AO was invalid, void and bad in law. Interestingly, the assessee pursued exactly same grounds in other three assessment- years, namely AY 1988-89, 1991-92 & 1992-93 and got decided from CIT(A). Therefore, this is a bad attempt of assessee not only to blame

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

reassessment- proceedings initiated by AO was invalid, void and bad in law. Interestingly, the assessee pursued exactly same grounds in other three assessment- years, namely AY 1988-89, 1991-92 & 1992-93 and got decided from CIT(A). Therefore, this is a bad attempt of assessee not only to blame

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

reassessment- proceedings initiated by AO was invalid, void and bad in law. Interestingly, the assessee pursued exactly same grounds in other three assessment- years, namely AY 1988-89, 1991-92 & 1992-93 and got decided from CIT(A). Therefore, this is a bad attempt of assessee not only to blame

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

reassessment- proceedings initiated by AO was invalid, void and bad in law. Interestingly, the assessee pursued exactly same grounds in other three assessment- years, namely AY 1988-89, 1991-92 & 1992-93 and got decided from CIT(A). Therefore, this is a bad attempt of assessee not only to blame

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

reassessment- proceedings initiated by AO was invalid, void and bad in law. Interestingly, the assessee pursued exactly same grounds in other three assessment- years, namely AY 1988-89, 1991-92 & 1992-93 and got decided from CIT(A). Therefore, this is a bad attempt of assessee not only to blame

DEEPAK KHANDELWAL,SEHORE vs. ITO, SEHORE, SEHORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanideepak Khandelwal Ito J.P. Market, Narsullaganj Sehore Vs. Sehore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agxpk7517R Assessee By Shri N.D. Patwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05.07.2024

unexplained investment. Therefore, it is only a case of estimation of income and not a case of undisclosed income or income assessable to tax as escaped assessment revealed by some material. Carrying out the transactions in Multi Commodity Exchange (MCX) does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the assesse has earned income as it may be a case

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

reassessment proceedings, addition of Rs. 30 lakhs was made towards unexplained investment allegedly made by the assessee by way of giving

SEEMA LUNAWAT,RATLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDSAUR

Appeal is allowed

unexplained investments\nwhen the assessee denies any such liability.\nPr. CIT vs. Veena Gupta (2017) 393 ITR 495 (P&H): The Punjab &\nHaryana High Court held that mere suspicion cannot justify addition\nunder Section 69 unless corroborated by evidence.\n1. 2. Affidavit denial by the assessee:\nThe appellant has categorically denied dealing in the alleged scrip through a sworn\naffidavit

KUSUM GEORGE JACOB,BHOPAL vs. ITO - 2(1) BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, HOSHANGABAD

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

unexplained investment in bonds of\n“Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.\"\n7.\nLd. AR for assessee carried us to a Paper-Book consisting of 9 pages;\nthe \"Index-Cum-Certification\" page of same is scanned and re-produced\nbelow:\nBEFORE THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH AT\nINDORE\n190476\nFixed for: 18/02/2026\nITA 657/IND/2025

YOGESH SOOD,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

unexplained investment. The Assessee contended that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without proper opportunity, violating principles of natural justice.", "held": "The Tribunal observed that the assessment order was not adjudicated on merits. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the AO for passing a fresh order on merits.", "result": "Allowed", "sections

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. I.T.O. 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act made for the alleged cash ITA Nos. 286 to 289/Ind/2018 ,719 to 722/Ind/2017 & 862 to 865/Ind/2019 Shri Vardhman Sakh Sahakarita Maryadit & Manish Kothari deposits in the bank account of the society namely Shree Vardhman Sakh Skarita Maryadit. The yearwise addition is mentioned below:- ASST.YEAR AMOUNT

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. ITO 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act made for the alleged cash ITA Nos. 286 to 289/Ind/2018 ,719 to 722/Ind/2017 & 862 to 865/Ind/2019 Shri Vardhman Sakh Sahakarita Maryadit & Manish Kothari deposits in the bank account of the society namely Shree Vardhman Sakh Skarita Maryadit. The yearwise addition is mentioned below:- ASST.YEAR AMOUNT