RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

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

173 Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana/-High Court held that where assessee could not explain receipt of alleged share transactions profits credited in his bank accounts, then sale proceeds had to be added as income of assessee under section 68 3, Balbir Chand Maini Vs CIT [2011J 12 taxmann.com 276 (Punjab & Haryana) / [2011] 201 Taxman 94 (Punjab & Haryana

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

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 PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned appeal is filed at the instance of Revenue pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13 and is directed

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT- RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

173) wherein their lordships have categorically held that before a penalty can be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the authorities have to bring to record cogent material or circumstances leading to a reasonable conclusion that the additions made during the assessment represent assessee's income and merely because the particular amount has been assessed as income

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

173) wherein their lordships have categorically held that before a penalty can be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the authorities have to bring to record cogent material or circumstances leading to a reasonable conclusion that the additions made during the assessment represent assessee's income and merely because the particular amount has been assessed as income

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

173) wherein their lordships have categorically held that before a penalty can be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the authorities have to bring to record cogent material or circumstances leading to a reasonable conclusion that the additions made during the assessment represent assessee's income and merely because the particular amount has been assessed as income

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

173) wherein their lordships have categorically held that before a penalty can be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the authorities have to bring to record cogent material or circumstances leading to a reasonable conclusion that the additions made during the assessment represent assessee's income and merely because the particular amount has been assessed as income

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

173) wherein their lordships have categorically held that before a penalty can be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the authorities have to bring to record cogent material or circumstances leading to a reasonable conclusion that the additions made during the assessment represent assessee's income and merely because the particular amount has been assessed as income

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

173) wherein their lordships have categorically held that before a penalty can be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the authorities have to bring to record cogent material or circumstances leading to a reasonable conclusion that the additions made during the assessment represent assessee's income and merely because the particular amount has been assessed as income

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PVT.LTD.,INDORE vs. THE JCIT, R-5 (PRESENT AO: DCIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

173) wherein their lordships have categorically held that before a penalty can be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the authorities have to bring to record cogent material or circumstances leading to a reasonable conclusion that the additions made during the assessment represent assessee's income and merely because the particular amount has been assessed as income

M/S SHRI GURMUKHDAS CONTRACTORS P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-CENRRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in I

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1) for A.Ys. 2010- 2011 to 2015-2016. It is also explained that there are unabated assessments except A.Y. 2015-2016 in which the assessments have been abated. Therefore, for each unabated and abated assessments, the authorities below and the Approving Authority [JCIT] shall have to verify the incriminating material found during the course of search or the seized material

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

173 Taxman 458(SC) The reasoning given by the Tribunal could not be, accepted simply because the Assessing Officer himself did not say any such thing in his order. There is no doubt that the proceedings before the Assessing Officer are quasi-judicial proceedings and a decision taken by him in this regard must be supported by reasons. Otherwise, every

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

section 68 of the Act. Further Ld CIT-A has also simply and easily endorsed finding of Ld AO without making any independent efforts on enquiry on his part , which finding of Ld CIT-A also do not objectively consider the various submissions and arguments of assessee. So we have no hesitation in accepting Ld ARs argument that

SHRI RADHESHYAM PATEL,INDORE vs. THE ITO- 2(3), INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Radheshyam Patel, Ito, Prop. Of M/S. Geetanjali Ward 2(3), बनाम/ & Cold Storage, Indore Bicholi Mardana, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abppp3172N Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, C.A. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2023

section 68 requires something more than mere proving identity i.e. the genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the creditors is also required to be satisfied. In the present case, we find certain important facts. Firstly, we find that the assessee has taken loans from not 1 or 2 creditors but from 19 creditors. Secondly, none of those creditors

SHRI SUKHRAM MUKATI,INDORE vs. THE ITO WD-3(3), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of Shri Sukhram Mukati and

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.409&410/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09

68 read with section 69A without verifying the facts of the case. The addition so made being illegal and wrong, the same required to be deleted. 3. That the learned CIT (A) erred in making addition of Rs. 27, 66,000 under section 69 without pinpointing any unexplained deposit. The addition so made being illegal and wrong

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P LTD., INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

68 in the immediately preceding assessment year. (xii) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 94,11,950/- made on account of disallowance of interest made to certain parties who not existed in A.Y.2008-09 which has been rightly done by the AO to keep the issue alive. (xiii) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 94,11,950/- made

M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT RANGE 1(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

68 in the immediately preceding assessment year. (xii) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 94,11,950/- made on account of disallowance of interest made to certain parties who not existed in A.Y.2008-09 which has been rightly done by the AO to keep the issue alive. (xiii) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 94,11,950/- made

M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT -CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

68 in the immediately preceding assessment year. (xii) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 94,11,950/- made on account of disallowance of interest made to certain parties who not existed in A.Y.2008-09 which has been rightly done by the AO to keep the issue alive. (xiii) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 94,11,950/- made

THE DCIT-1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

68 in the immediately preceding assessment year. (xii) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 94,11,950/- made on account of disallowance of interest made to certain parties who not existed in A.Y.2008-09 which has been rightly done by the AO to keep the issue alive. (xiii) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 94,11,950/- made