HIMANSHU BOTADEARA HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

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

Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on 24th December, 2018, whereby an addition u/s 68 of the Act was made Page 3 of 12 Himanshu Botadara, HUF, Indore vs. ITO,4(3), Indore. I.T.A.Nos. 155

HIMANSHU BOTADEARA HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

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

Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on 24th December, 2018, whereby an addition u/s 68 of the Act was made Page 3 of 12 Himanshu Botadara, HUF, Indore vs. ITO,4(3), Indore. I.T.A.Nos. 155

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

155, Anoop Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No. AAIHP8501M Revenue by Shri P.K. Mitra, Sr.DR Assessee by S/Shri Sumit Neema, Sr.Adv & Pankaj Shah,CA Date of Hearing 15.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement 31.10.2018 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned three appeals are filed at the instance of different assessees. ITA No.315/Ind/2012 & ITA No.252/Ind/2016 Annapurna Maheshwari

SHRI PRADEEP MAHESHWARI HUF,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

155, Anoop Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No. AAIHP8501M Revenue by Shri P.K. Mitra, Sr.DR Assessee by S/Shri Sumit Neema, Sr.Adv & Pankaj Shah,CA Date of Hearing 15.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement 31.10.2018 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned three appeals are filed at the instance of different assessees. ITA No.315/Ind/2012 & ITA No.252/Ind/2016 Annapurna Maheshwari

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

155, Anoop Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No. AAIHP8501M Revenue by Shri P.K. Mitra, Sr.DR Assessee by S/Shri Sumit Neema, Sr.Adv & Pankaj Shah,CA Date of Hearing 15.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement 31.10.2018 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned three appeals are filed at the instance of different assessees. ITA No.315/Ind/2012 & ITA No.252/Ind/2016 Annapurna Maheshwari

SHRI VARAD MEHTA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Shri Varad Mehta, Dcit 1(1), B-4/301, Paras City, Vs. Bhopal Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aflpm6733Q Revenue By Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Girish Agrawal,Ca Date Of Hearing 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2018 O R D E R

155 - order dated 21.05.2015 - Para 10 - "In this case, the Assessing Officer has not brought out any specific charge for which the penalty has been imposed on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. He has not brought out whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or whether the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income

MANOJ KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (1), INDORE, INDORE

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

155, 158BE and 231 and for the purposes of payment of interest under section 243 or section 244 or, as the case may be, section 244A, this proviso shall also apply accordingly. 4. On the issue of the applicability of special provision vs general Sumati Kumar Kasliwal & others ITANo.181,472/Ind/2017,ITA(SS)No.178,ITANo.468/Ind/2017&C.O.No.31/Ind/2018

SHRIMATI SHARDA KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (I), INDORE, INDORE

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

155, 158BE and 231 and for the purposes of payment of interest under section 243 or section 244 or, as the case may be, section 244A, this proviso shall also apply accordingly. 4. On the issue of the applicability of special provision vs general Sumati Kumar Kasliwal & others ITANo.181,472/Ind/2017,ITA(SS)No.178,ITANo.468/Ind/2017&C.O.No.31/Ind/2018

PARTH KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (I), INDORE , INDORE

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

155, 158BE and 231 and for the purposes of payment of interest under section 243 or section 244 or, as the case may be, section 244A, this proviso shall also apply accordingly. 4. On the issue of the applicability of special provision vs general Sumati Kumar Kasliwal & others ITANo.181,472/Ind/2017,ITA(SS)No.178,ITANo.468/Ind/2017&C.O.No.31/Ind/2018

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD.,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE

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

155, 158BE and 231 and for the purposes of payment of interest under section 243 or section 244 or, as the case may be, section 244A, this proviso shall also apply accordingly. 4. On the issue of the applicability of special provision vs general Sumati Kumar Kasliwal & others ITANo.181,472/Ind/2017,ITA(SS)No.178,ITANo.468/Ind/2017&C.O.No.31/Ind/2018

DYPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. , INDORE

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

155, 158BE and 231 and for the purposes of payment of interest under section 243 or section 244 or, as the case may be, section 244A, this proviso shall also apply accordingly. 4. On the issue of the applicability of special provision vs general Sumati Kumar Kasliwal & others ITANo.181,472/Ind/2017,ITA(SS)No.178,ITANo.468/Ind/2017&C.O.No.31/Ind/2018

M/S NISHANT FINANCE PVT.LTD,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL (I), INDORE, INDORE

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

155, 158BE and 231 and for the purposes of payment of interest under section 243 or section 244 or, as the case may be, section 244A, this proviso shall also apply accordingly. 4. On the issue of the applicability of special provision vs general Sumati Kumar Kasliwal & others ITANo.181,472/Ind/2017,ITA(SS)No.178,ITANo.468/Ind/2017&C.O.No.31/Ind/2018

SUMATI KUMAR KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE

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

155, 158BE and 231 and for the purposes of payment of interest under section 243 or section 244 or, as the case may be, section 244A, this proviso shall also apply accordingly. 4. On the issue of the applicability of special provision vs general Sumati Kumar Kasliwal & others ITANo.181,472/Ind/2017,ITA(SS)No.178,ITANo.468/Ind/2017&C.O.No.31/Ind/2018

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

155 ITR 711 (SC) 3.2 Ld. AR has submitted that the provisions of section 69/69A are applicable on cumulative satisfaction of the condition prescribed therein and once the assessee has explained the nature and source of the income or assets then provisions of section 69A are not applicable. He has further submitted that the AO has applied

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, LOCATION

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

155 ITR 711 (SC) 3.2 Ld. AR has submitted that the provisions of section 69/69A are applicable on cumulative satisfaction of the condition prescribed therein and once the assessee has explained the nature and source of the income or assets then provisions of section 69A are not applicable. He has further submitted that the AO has applied

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. AASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

155 ITR 711 (SC) 3.2 Ld. AR has submitted that the provisions of section 69/69A are applicable on cumulative satisfaction of the condition prescribed therein and once the assessee has explained the nature and source of the income or assets then provisions of section 69A are not applicable. He has further submitted that the AO has applied

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

155 ITR 711 (SC) 3.2 Ld. AR has submitted that the provisions of section 69/69A are applicable on cumulative satisfaction of the condition prescribed therein and once the assessee has explained the nature and source of the income or assets then provisions of section 69A are not applicable. He has further submitted that the AO has applied

BARKHA KHANDELWAL,AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1),INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Barkha Khandelwal Ito -3(1) Aggrieved Assesse Indore 1108, Pinnacle D Dreams, Tower -1 Vs. Near Bhawan Prominent School Pipliyakumar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ajnpk4150B Assessee By Shri Rakesh Gupta, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20 .09.2024

68, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. Page 3 of 13 ITANo.85/Ind/2024 Barkha Khandelwal 13. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action