VIRENDRA KUMAR MANDOT,, SADAR BAZAR SAILANA RATLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO-1, RATLAM, RATLAM

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

68 of the Act The cash deposited in the bank accounts arose from genuine sales of the Appellant's regular business and is duly recorded in the books of account. Therefore, such deposits cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section

PIYUSH JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(4), INDORE , ITO, INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

deposited in bank at Satna and Katni\nregularly.\n3.\nThat rejection of cash book and application of section 68 is unjustified

SHRI RAJEEV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

68,000/- to the total of unexplained cash deposits. When the matter was carried before Ld.CIT(A) Rs.38,000/- was deleted and thus for the remaining of Rs.5,30,000/- was in appeal before the Tribunal. 35. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee showing the cash flow statement placed at page 32 to 33 of the synopsis submitted

SMT ANJANA SINHA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

68,000/- to the total of unexplained cash deposits. When the matter was carried before Ld.CIT(A) Rs.38,000/- was deleted and thus for the remaining of Rs.5,30,000/- was in appeal before the Tribunal. 35. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee showing the cash flow statement placed at page 32 to 33 of the synopsis submitted

SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

68,000/- to the total of unexplained cash deposits. When the matter was carried before Ld.CIT(A) Rs.38,000/- was deleted and thus for the remaining of Rs.5,30,000/- was in appeal before the Tribunal. 35. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee showing the cash flow statement placed at page 32 to 33 of the synopsis submitted

SMT. MANJU SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

68,000/- to the total of unexplained cash deposits. When the matter was carried before Ld.CIT(A) Rs.38,000/- was deleted and thus for the remaining of Rs.5,30,000/- was in appeal before the Tribunal. 35. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee showing the cash flow statement placed at page 32 to 33 of the synopsis submitted

SHRI PRABHAT SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

cash was available which was accepted by him only in the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10. Thus, the appellant prays that the addition is baseless and the source of the deposits is duly explained, and each deposit has already been taken in to account while preparing the balance sheet. The deposit cannot be treated as unaccounted. 4. On query

SHRI SUNIL SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE -2(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

cash was available which was accepted by him only in the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10. Thus, the appellant prays that the addition is baseless and the source of the deposits is duly explained, and each deposit has already been taken in to account while preparing the balance sheet. The deposit cannot be treated as unaccounted. 4. On query

SMT. ARCHANA CHANDAK,INDORE vs. ITO 3(2), INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal isallowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credit in the Bank Accounts. However, from the orders passed by the authorities below, it doesn’t appear that any inquiry has been made by them whether the cash has been deposited

BHAGWAN SINGH GOUR RUNNING AASHIRWAD FUEL POINT,VILLAGE NEEMKHEDI POST RUNAHA vs. ITO- 4 (3) CV R JAYA KUMAR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF ITO

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

deposits were duly explained and all relevant records were filed, hence, section 68 was not applicable in assessee’s case. However, the AO added Rs.1,21,99,435/- under section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

cash credit (Section 68), unexplained investment (Section 69) unexplained money etc (Section 69A) amount of investment which fully not disclosed (Section 69B) and unexplained expenditure (Section 69C). In the instant case the assessee has claimed to have earned income from unexplained source which in this case can be treated as unexplained professional receipts since the assessee is a medical practitioner

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

cash credit (Section 68), unexplained investment (Section 69) unexplained money etc (Section 69A) amount of investment which fully not disclosed (Section 69B) and unexplained expenditure (Section 69C). In the instant case the assessee has claimed to have earned income from unexplained source which in this case can be treated as unexplained professional receipts since the assessee is a medical practitioner

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

cash credit (Section 68), unexplained investment (Section 69) unexplained money etc (Section 69A) amount of investment which fully not disclosed (Section 69B) and unexplained expenditure (Section 69C). In the instant case the assessee has claimed to have earned income from unexplained source which in this case can be treated as unexplained professional receipts since the assessee is a medical practitioner

JYOTI GOYAL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed as mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Jyoti Goyal, Dcit, 18, Shyamla Hills, 1(1), बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abbpg3493P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

section 69A. This principle was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Garg v. Pr. CIT (2020) 113 taxmann.com 93 (S.C.) / (2020) 269 Taxman 26 (S.C.), when the SLP against the Hon'ble High Court decision of upholding the Tribunal order of sustaining addition u/s 69A was dismissed. The Hon'ble High Court had held

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

68,29,140/- wherein tax was paid at Rs. 25,48,900/-, However, on going through the statement recorded during survey action, it could not be substantiated that the appellant has declared the same cash as deposited while making payment of advance tax. Earlier, the appellant has vehemently contended that source of cash deposit was originated from business income. However

DHARMEDDRA DOSHI,SANWER ROAD, INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), INDORE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, OPPOSITE WHITE CHURCH, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2017-18 Dharmendra Doshi, Ito, 147-B, Sector-F, 1(1), Sanwer Road Industrial Indore. बनाम/ Area, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Afspd7034G Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal & Shri Harsh Choukse, Ca Revenue By Shri Sanjeev H. Bhagat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2025

deposit pertained from cash withdrawal from the Bank account. (Kindly refer page no. 142 to 145 of the PB). 1.9. The Ld. AO resorted to reject the books of accounts of the appellant u/s 145(3) and invoked section 68

INCME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SWARNA SUKH, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 44AA if yes, list of book so prescribed the answer given against column 11(a) is list of books of accounts cash book, ledger, bank book, journals. In 11(b) the answer given is computerized cash book, bank book, ledger, journal. Against 11(c) answer given is list of books of accounts cash, ledger, bank book, journal

THE ACIT (CENTRAL) II, BHOPAL vs. M/S SIGNATURE BUILDERS, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 145 of the act. Regarding non-filing of information of cash- deposits in the Form of ITR, the assessee has given a sufficient explanation that the clerical staff did not understand the importance of filing of information and further the fields prescribed in ITR for this purpose were also not mandatory. Even otherwise giving or non-giving details

NILESH JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2011-12 Nilesh Jain, Ito 1(1) 1, Gandhi Chowk, Indore बनाम/ Chandrawati Ganj Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ajxpj3919M Assessee By Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

68 of the Act. The Addition so made by the Ld. A.O. of Rs. 6,57,923/- was therefore factually as well as and legally not correct. You are therefore very kindly requested to delete the same in full. 02) Cash deposited in the Bank Account cannot be taxed under section