ACIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. SANJAY LADDHA, INDORE

demonetization period. Furthermore, even if the books were rejected under Section 145(3), making an addition under Section 68 was legally

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

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

section 68\nhas no application when cash is received on account of sales consideration. He\nfurther states that since trading results have been accepted then purchases and sales\ncannot be added u/s 68 as held in the case of CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain [2006]\nreported 250 CTR 444. He further pointed out that cash balance of the assessee

UJJAIN NAGRIK SAHKARI PEDI MARYADIT UJJAIN,UJJAIN vs. ITO 1(2) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniujjain Nagrik Sahkari Pedi Ito 1(2) Maryadit Ujjain Ujjain Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaaau0360J Assessee By Shri Sharad Jain, Ar Shri Sanjeev H. Bhagat, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2024 O R D E R

section of addition from Sec. 68 to Sec.69A and (b) the appellant had filed 14 different submissions but except only one, rest submissions and documents therein have been totally ignored.” 3. The rest of the grounds in ground no.4 are only in the nature of arguments of the assessee. The assessee is a primary credit Cooperative Society engaged

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

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and \"impugned order” is upheld

demonetization was quantified as Rs.3,43,59,000/- and was added to the returned income u/s 68 of the Act.\n\n4.6 Section

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

Section 68 were not applicable. In this context, we place reliance on the judgments submitted at 29-53 of the case law paper book. Therefore, in view of above-mentioned facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements, we humbly Pray to the Hon'ble Bench to delete the impugned addition of Rs. 32,67,500/- u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE

VIPIN KUMAR PITLIYA HUF,RATLAM vs. ITO, RATLAM

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Vipin Kumar Pitliya Huf, Ito-1, C/O: Rajesh Heeralal Mehta & Ratlam Co., Chartered Accountants, 203, बनाम/ Manas Bhawan Extn., Vs. 11, Rnt Marg, Near Hotel Shreemaya, Indore.

section 68 is wrong and contrary to the facts of the case and the provisions of the Act. Thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the order of the AO is liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming

OMPRAKASH JAISWAL,INDORE vs. ACIT-1(1), INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

section 68 of the Act, said books of account ceased to\nexist and no addition can be made u/s 68. This legal position is held by\nnumerous judicial decisions.\n(iii) Thirdly, it is submitted that the assessee is engaged in liquor trade\nand in the line of assessee's business, the sales is made in cash and major\namount

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL vs. SH. PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA, BHOPAL

In the result the “impugned order” is sustained on the first

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit, Prakash Chandra, बनाम/ Bhopal 16/244, Kings Vs. Shopping Centre, Mp Nagar, Zone-I, Bhopal-462011 Madhya Pradesh (Pan:Aappg5194E)

section 68. As a result, ground no 2 is partly allowed. (5). In result, the appeal is partly allowed. 4. That the Revenue being aggrieved by the “Impugned order” has preferred the instant appeal before this Tribunal and has raised the following grounds of appeal in the Form No. 36 against the “Impugned order” which are as under:- “1. Ground

RAM BABU SINGH,BIHAR vs. THE ITO-2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Ram Babu Singh, Income-Tax Officer, Near Gayatri Mandir, 2(1), बनाम/ Saharsa, Bhopal Vs. Bihar (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Cufps2957D Assessee By Shri S.N.Agrawal, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024

section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of this addition was grossly unjustifiable and wholly unwarranted. ” 2. Brief facts of case are such that the assessee filed return of AY 2017- 18 on 28.10.2017 declaring an income of Rs. 1,16,660/-. The case of assessee was subjected to scrutiny-assessment and the AO issued notices

RAKESH BHOJANI,SIYAGANJ INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -4(1), INDORE, CGO COMPLEX

Appeal is allowed

sections": [ "143(3)", "142(1)", "143(2)", "68", "115BBE", "133(6)", "114(g)", "46A" ], "issues": "Whether the addition of cash deposits made during demonetization

GULABSINGH RAGHUWANSHI HUF,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE 2(5) , INDORE

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

sections": [ "253", "143(2)", "142(1)", "69A", "115BBE", "246A", "68", "139A", "234A", "234B", "234C" ], "issues": "Whether the assessee has adequately explained the source of cash deposits made during the demonetization

SANJAY JAT,BARWANI vs. ITO, SENDHWA

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Sanjay Jat, Ito, 2, Bagud, Piplaj, Sendhwa बनाम/ Barwani Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ajupj7949Q Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca & Shri N.D. Patwa, Adv Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23.01.2024

demonetization period. (4) The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the application of section 68 and moreover adopting

DCIT-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MANIDHARI JEWELLERS, BHOPAL

The appeal are allowed

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-3(1), Manidhari Jewellers, बनाम/ Bhopal Room No.202, Vs. Metro Walk Bulding, Bitten Market, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Pan: Abafm6546L) (Revenue) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

section 68. In the decision of CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. [2012]19 Taxmann.com 26, wherein : *38. Even in the instant case, it is projected by the Revenue that the DIT(Investigation) had purportedly found such a racket of floating bogus companies with sole purpose of lending entries. But, it is unfortunate that all this exercise is going

MOHAMMAD IBRAHEEM KHATRI,KHANDWA vs. THE ITO-1, KHANDWA, KHANDWA

In the result, the appeal of assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raomohammad Ibraheem Khatri Ito-1 (Prop. Pakeeza Collection) Khandwa 42, Sanjay Colony, Nagchoon Vs. Road Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Bhrpk3840B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2024

demonetization period by treating it as unexplained cash credit section 68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and consequently charged

CHANDAN GARMENTS P LTD ,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Chandan Garments Private Pr. Cit -1 Ltd. Indore बनाम 27-36, Khutal Complex, Subhash Chowk, Rajwada, /Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaecc 3248 H Assessee By Shri Prakash Jain & Ms. Shreya Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 02.12.2022 आदेश / / / O R D E R /

68,750/- both in the F.Y 2016-2017. The persons from whom the cash was seized as also the appellant herein admitted that it belonged to the appellant who carries on trading in gold bullion. The appellant not having produced any books of accounts or cash flow statements failed to establish the source of the money seized; which was included

SHAIILENDRA SINGH RAJPOOT,BARELI vs. ITO, RAISEN, RAISEN

Appeal is partly allowed

sections": [ "143(3)", "143(2)", "142(1)", "69A", "68" ], "issues": "Whether cash deposits made during the demonetization period are unexplained

MRS SHWETA SONI,INDORE vs. THE ITO 5(4), INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

demonetization period. The Assessing Officer observed that no satisfactory documentary evidence was submitted by the assessee. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- as unexplained money under Section 69A at the rate prescribed under Section 115BBE of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before

MR GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, INDORE

Accordingly. Thus, this ground is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Gaurav Ajmera, Dcit, बनाम/ 38, Ram Mohalla, Central Circle 2, Ratlam Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aglpa8863C Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.09.2023

demonetization period, packed in two bags and in train, which was intercepted by ATS authorities. It is further clear that when the authorities interogeted assessee in the proceeding of section 131 and section 132(4), the assessee categorically accepted that he was unable to explain the source of cash; that the impugned cash was not recorded in his books; that