JAGDISH SOLANKI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER JHABUA, JHABUA

Appeal is dismissed

money u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 is hereby made to the total income of the assessee which is taxed as per provisions of section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961.\nIn view of these facts, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is hereby initiated by issuing penalty notice u/s 274 read with section 271AAC

ACIT (CENTRAL UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S ARIHANT FUTURE AND COMMODITIES LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

147 on 26.11.2019 wherein certain additions were made by the Ld. Assessing Officer (in short Ld. AO). The aggrieved assessee challenged the reopening proceedings and also the additions made before the Ld. CIT(A) and the addition made by the Ld. AO were deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), hence the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. However

THE ACIT, CENTRAL - UJJAIN, INDORE vs. M/S ARIHANT FUTURE & COMMADITIES LTD , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

147 on 26.11.2019 wherein certain additions were made by the Ld. Assessing Officer (in short Ld. AO). The aggrieved assessee challenged the reopening proceedings and also the additions made before the Ld. CIT(A) and the addition made by the Ld. AO were deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), hence the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. However

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-UJJAIN, INDORE vs. M/S ARIHANT CAPITALS MARKETS LTD , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

147 on 26.11.2019 wherein certain additions were made by the Ld. Assessing Officer (in short Ld. AO). The aggrieved assessee challenged the reopening proceedings and also the additions made before the Ld. CIT(A) and the addition made by the Ld. AO were deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), hence the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. However

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

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

money, bullion, jewellery, etc. was found or discovered during search [Para 9 of order]. The facts in present appeals are quite different. Therefore, this decision cannot help assessee. 21. The case of CIT & Anr. Vs. Dr. N. Thippa Shetty (supra) was also on a distinguishable set of facts. It is true that in that case, the AO issued notice u/s

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

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

money, bullion, jewellery, etc. was found or discovered during search [Para 9 of order]. The facts in present appeals are quite different. Therefore, this decision cannot help assessee. 21. The case of CIT & Anr. Vs. Dr. N. Thippa Shetty (supra) was also on a distinguishable set of facts. It is true that in that case, the AO issued notice u/s

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

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

money, bullion, jewellery, etc. was found or discovered during search [Para 9 of order]. The facts in present appeals are quite different. Therefore, this decision cannot help assessee. 21. The case of CIT & Anr. Vs. Dr. N. Thippa Shetty (supra) was also on a distinguishable set of facts. It is true that in that case, the AO issued notice u/s

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

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

money, bullion, jewellery, etc. was found or discovered during search [Para 9 of order]. The facts in present appeals are quite different. Therefore, this decision cannot help assessee. 21. The case of CIT & Anr. Vs. Dr. N. Thippa Shetty (supra) was also on a distinguishable set of facts. It is true that in that case, the AO issued notice u/s

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

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

money, bullion, jewellery, etc. was found or discovered during search [Para 9 of order]. The facts in present appeals are quite different. Therefore, this decision cannot help assessee. 21. The case of CIT & Anr. Vs. Dr. N. Thippa Shetty (supra) was also on a distinguishable set of facts. It is true that in that case, the AO issued notice u/s

RAJ KUMAR PARMAR,SEHORE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, SEHORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose, subject\nto payment of cost as mentioned above

147. The AO also issue\nnotices u/s 142(1) and show-cause notice to assessee. However, the\nassessee remained non-responsive. Ultimately, the AO passed ex-parte\nassessment-order u/s 144 assessing the impugned deposits of Rs.\n52,87,000/- as unexplained income of assessee u/s 69A. Aggrieved, the\nassessee carried matter in first-appeal whereupon the CIT(A) passed

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

147 rws 144/144B of the Act, the total income of the Assessee was computed & assessed at Rs. 67,95,681/-.The total income as per the return of income was at Rs.2,59,581/-. The Addition of Rs. 65,36,100/- was made as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The aforesaid “Assessment order” bears No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2021- 22/1035850748

NILIMA KOTHARI,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSTT. CENTRE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

unexplained expenditure u/s 69C at Rs. 1,22,341/-. Income assessed at Rs.30,11,605/-. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) raising various legal issues and grounds on merit but failed to succeed. 3.2 Now the assesse is in appeal before this tribunal. The assesse has raised legal issues challenging the validity of notice issue u/s

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

unexplained share capital\n(including share premium). Aggrieved by addition, the assessee carried\nmatter in first-appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A), vide his order dated\n09.04.2019, deleted the addition on merit. At the same time, the CIT(A) also\nobserved that the assessee received share capital of Rs.48,47,22,100/- in\ntwo years, namely Rs.42

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

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 order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 17.02.2023 assessing the total income at Rs. 19,40,652/-/ 6.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision and order of the AO, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal

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

147 rws 144/144B of the Act, the total income of the Assessee was computed & assessed at Rs. 9,84,35,092/-.No income tax return was filed. The addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A rws 115BBE of the Act was at Rs. 9,80,10,563/-.There was yet another addition on the account of interest under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI NEERAJ MANDLOI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

reassessment could have be done only u/s 153C and not u/s 147 and thus the impugned assessment order was liable to be quashed as being without Shri Neeraj Mandloi ITA No.680/Ind/2020 & C.O.No.04/Ind/2020 jurisdiction. 3.That the Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that section 153 C overrides section 147/148 and thus proceedings which are initiated pursuant to document seized under

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