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

section 68 cannot be applied and no addition can be made u/s 68:\n\"9. Even on legal side, we find merit in the submission made by Ld. AR\nthat once the AO has rejected books of assessee u/s 145

AABHUSHAN,DHAMNOD, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO DHAR, DHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaabhushan Dhamnod Ito, Dhar 1St Floor, Ganpati Market Ab Road Dhamnod Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abgfa0812K Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & Shri S.N. Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024 O R D E R

68 of the Act. On appeal the CIT(A) has confirmed the said addition for want of any evidence. 13.1 Before the Tribunal Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee has taken this loan from Bajaj Finance Limited a non- banking financial institution and ledger of loan from Bajaj Finance was duly produced before

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

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

sections": [ "143(3)", "145(3)", "68", "115BBE", "271AAC", "144" ], "issues": "Whether the AO was justified in rejecting the assessee

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

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

145(3) and application\nof section 68 in the instant case is legally unjustified and improper because section

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

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

145\nof the Act. Therefore, deposits recorded as sales cannot be treated as unexplained\ncredits.\nTreating the same receipts as unexplained under Section 68

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

section 68 of the Act by stating that only copy of ledger was filed without PAN. The appellant during 19 Sanjay Lunawat ITA No.396/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.32/Ind/2018 the course of appellate proceeding filed copy of account of the appellant in the book of M/s Jain Infratech and contra account of M/s Jain Infratech in the book of the appellant, copy

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

145, section 68 has not application and consequently no addition can be made u/s 68: (a) CIT Vs. Dulla

THE DCIT,1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. RITSPIN SYNTHETICS LTD., PITHAMPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms indicated above, and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 of the Act, nor can the interest expenditure be disallowed under section 69C of the Act. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in PCIT v. Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd. [2022] 145

M/S. S.R. FERRO ALLOYS,JHABUA vs. THE PCIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

68 of the Act. Failure of the AO to conduct necessary and proper inquiry renders the order passed by the AO as erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He has relied upon the explanation (2) to section 263(1) of the Act. He has relied upon the impugned order

THE ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN vs. SHRI SANJAY BAGDI, UJJAIN

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Sanjay Bagdi, Income Tax – 2(1), Vs. 173 Alakhdham Nagar, Ujjain Ujjain (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Ahcpb6349L Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri S.S. Deshpande & Bhavesh Netkar,Cas Date Of Hearing 01.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 14.11.2018 O R D E R

68 of the Act. The assessee did not provide any detail which paved the way to the impugned addition. Therefore after examining the details and perusal of provisions of Section 144 and 145

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE LTD., DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

145(3). It would be appropriate and meet the interest of justice if the sales is estimated at Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in place of 70,99,500/-. But the entire difference in the sale cannot be taken as income of the appellant and only net profit of the on the estimated sales can be taxed

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

145(3). It would be appropriate and meet the interest of justice if the sales is estimated at Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in place of 70,99,500/-. But the entire difference in the sale cannot be taken as income of the appellant and only net profit of the on the estimated sales can be taxed

M/S BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,DEWAS vs. THE ITO, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

145(3). It would be appropriate and meet the interest of justice if the sales is estimated at Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in place of 70,99,500/-. But the entire difference in the sale cannot be taken as income of the appellant and only net profit of the on the estimated sales can be taxed

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

145(3). It would be appropriate and meet the interest of justice if the sales is estimated at Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in place of 70,99,500/-. But the entire difference in the sale cannot be taken as income of the appellant and only net profit of the on the estimated sales can be taxed

M/S BHOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,DEWAS vs. THE ACIT 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

145(3). It would be appropriate and meet the interest of justice if the sales is estimated at Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in place of 70,99,500/-. But the entire difference in the sale cannot be taken as income of the appellant and only net profit of the on the estimated sales can be taxed

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

145(3). It would be appropriate and meet the interest of justice if the sales is estimated at Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in place of 70,99,500/-. But the entire difference in the sale cannot be taken as income of the appellant and only net profit of the on the estimated sales can be taxed

M/S. BHOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,DEWAS vs. THE ITO, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

145(3). It would be appropriate and meet the interest of justice if the sales is estimated at Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in place of 70,99,500/-. But the entire difference in the sale cannot be taken as income of the appellant and only net profit of the on the estimated sales can be taxed

THE DCIT-2(1), INDORE vs. M/S. CENTURY 21 MALL (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 of the IT Act whereas credit worthiness of the creditors was not proved either at the time of assessment or at the time of appellate proceedings. 3. Ld. CIT (A) erred is not considering the fact that financials of most of the creditors is question are having no capital, no funds and no income to provide funds