BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act even when the appellant was not the proprietor of M/s Rukmani Roadlines and Shri Sunil Kumar Lalwani (PAN: AAJPL4938M) himself was the proprietor of M/s Rukmani Roadlines 6. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by him.” 3. The brief facts

SURESH KUMAR,MANAS BHAWAN, RNT MARG, INDORE vs. ITO, BURHANPUR, INDORE

In the result we are of the considered

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisuresh Kumar, Ito –Burhanpur. बनाम/ 112, Manas Bhawan, Vs. 11 Rnt Marg, Indore (Pan: Eekps7728B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date Of 22.01.2026 Pronouncement आदेश/ O R D E R

unexplained money is upheld. Further, the addition of Rs.2,59,581/- as Salary Income is also upheld. 5. As a result, this appeal is dismissed.” 2.7 The assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal & has raised the following grounds of appeal in the form No. 36 against the “Impugned Order” which

INDIRA BAI JINDAL,KHARGONE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

money and ₹1,05,000/- as unexplained expenditure, and the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and section 271F of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) raising multiple grounds. Grounds of Appeal Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 pertained to the validity

SURESH JAT,BADNAWAR vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, DHAR, DHAR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisuresh Jat, Ito, बनाम/ C/O S.V. Agrawal & Associate Dhar. Vs. Dadi Dham, 24-25, Joy Building Colony, Old Aplasia, Indore. (Pan: Anopj2666E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri Anup Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

unexplained money and added the same to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act for the year under consideration.” 2.9 In the “Impugned Assessment Order” the Ld. AO has also recorded finding in respect of the Income of Rs 4,19,451/-which was received as interest income from "Sh. Om Prakash gupta

RUPESH JAISWAL,DHARAMPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

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

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshirupesh Jaiswal, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 111, Azad Marg, Indore Vs. Dist. Dhar, Tehsil Dharampuri, Dharampuri (Pan: Akopj7192C) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka & Ms. Eva Rawka, Ars Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and brought to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. Page 3 of 10 Rupesh Jaiswal ITA No. 717/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 2.5 That the aforesaid order bears No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2021- 22/1041907689(1) and same is dated 29.03.2022 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned intimation order”. 2.6 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid

BAJRANG LAL,UJJAIN, M.P. vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad

unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act even when the appellant was not liable to maintain books of accounts and therefore, provisions of section 69A of the Act was not applicable. 8. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by him.” 1. That on the facts

BAJRANG LAL,UJJAIN, M.P. vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad

unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act even when the appellant was not liable to maintain books of accounts and therefore, provisions of section 69A of the Act was not applicable. 8. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by him.” 1. That on the facts

HARISH CHANDRA PUROHIT,RATLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1, RATLAM, RATLAM

In the result- the Impugned order is set aside as and by way

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2018-19

unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO is hereby confirmed, and all the grounds raised by the appellant are hereby dismissed. 6. In the result the appeal is Dismissed.” 2.11 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this tribunal & has raised the following

DILIP BUDHADEV,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. THE ITO, SENDHWA, SENDHWA, MADHYA PRADESH

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical\npurpose

unexplained money\nunder section 69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act even when only th\npeak balance could have been subject to tax\n5. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter and modify the\ngrounds of appeal as taken by him\n6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld CIT(A) erred

ALI AHMAD SAIFI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-WARD RAJGARH, INCOME TAX OFFICE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniali Ahmad Saifi Ito-Ward Flat No.T-3 Ale Imran Rajgarh Building Beldarpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Btnps4084H Assessee By Shri Mahendra Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08.02.2024

reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO and consequential assessment order passed ex-parte. Ld. AR has submitted that the AO has made addition on account of unexplained money

RASHIDA BEE,JAORA CHOUPATI vs. CIT(A), RATLAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Reassessment\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.\nAssessing Officer erred in reopening the case under section 148\nof the Act. The appellant prays that the said notice and\nconsequent assessment be declared as void and bad in law and\ndirected to be quashed.\nS.69A – Against alleged unexplained money

SANDHYA SINGH,ROHIT NAGAR, BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(3) BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and adding it to the income of the assessee, with tax charged under section 115BBE of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In the grounds of appeal, the assessee challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S FERRO CONCREATE CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT. LTD INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT act 1961. 3. Further, the assessee has also filed the following application for admission of additional ground for the assessment year 2009- 10: “BEFORE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE IN THE MATTER OF M/S FERRO CONCRETE CONST. [INDIA] PVT. LTD. V/S DCIT 1[1], INDORE (M.P.) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 Ferro

SARTHAK REAL BUILT PVT. LTD, ,INDORE vs. DY, CIT,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT act 1961. 3. Further, the assessee has also filed the following application for admission of additional ground for the assessment year 2009- 10: “BEFORE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE IN THE MATTER OF M/S FERRO CONCRETE CONST. [INDIA] PVT. LTD. V/S DCIT 1[1], INDORE (M.P.) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 Ferro

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT act 1961. 3. Further, the assessee has also filed the following application for admission of additional ground for the assessment year 2009- 10: “BEFORE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE IN THE MATTER OF M/S FERRO CONCRETE CONST. [INDIA] PVT. LTD. V/S DCIT 1[1], INDORE (M.P.) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 Ferro

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT act 1961. 3. Further, the assessee has also filed the following application for admission of additional ground for the assessment year 2009- 10: “BEFORE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE IN THE MATTER OF M/S FERRO CONCRETE CONST. [INDIA] PVT. LTD. V/S DCIT 1[1], INDORE (M.P.) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 Ferro

SEEMA SINHA,INDORE vs. ITO-4(4), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Seema Sinha Ito-3(4) C-508, Shehnai Residency Bhopal Vs. A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Alups4142A Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.03.2024

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 even when reopening was done in absence of any tangible material and live link of concealment of income and merely for verification of source of cash deposits in the bank account. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

money and not unaccounted or unexplained investment. 4b). That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs.10,63,37,500/- made by the AO in the appellant’s income, on account of alleged unexplained investment, without considering the material fact that during the course