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

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

section 69A and confirmed by Id CIT(A) is hereby set- aside and directed to\nbe deleted.\n16. In case of New Pooja Jewellers, vs. ITO (Kolkota ITAT) ITA no. 1329/Kol/2018, the\nassessee received advances which were subsequently recorded as sales. These sales were\naccepted as income by the AO. When a receipt is accounted as income, no separate

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 by stating that the appellant preponed his sales and artificially increased cash balance. In the absence of proper stock register, the explanation that the cash deposits were generated from cash sales was rejected by the AO. The appellant claimed that he submitted purchase and sales register before the AO. It is seen that the books of accounts

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

68 are fulfilled, there is hardly any scope to invoke the provisions of section 263 of the Act, alleging introduction of unexplained funds in the form of cash credits. The burden so shifts on revenue to establish that such credits has actually come from Asseessee Company itself. However, as stated above, no evidence was available on record by which

SATYANARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14

194 Taxman 504 – order pronounced on 24.04.2010 – Para 7 – “In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that the Tribunal arrived at a conclusive finding that, though the assessment order does not patently indicate that the issue in question had been considered by the Assessing Officer, the record showed that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind. Once such

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

194 J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). 6. The assessee Company carried the matter in appeal before CIT (Appeals) and the Commissioner, CIT (Appeals) confirmed the view of the Assessing Officer and the appeals to that extent were dismissed. But other part of the allowing of the appeals was of the verification in the reduction

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

194 J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). 6. The assessee Company carried the matter in appeal before CIT (Appeals) and the Commissioner, CIT (Appeals) confirmed the view of the Assessing Officer and the appeals to that extent were dismissed. But other part of the allowing of the appeals was of the verification in the reduction

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

194 J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). 6. The assessee Company carried the matter in appeal before CIT (Appeals) and the Commissioner, CIT (Appeals) confirmed the view of the Assessing Officer and the appeals to that extent were dismissed. But other part of the allowing of the appeals was of the verification in the reduction

GLOBUS HOUSING,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 68 applies equally to money received by the assessee shown as sale of shares and the burden is on the assessee to prove the nature and source thereof to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer regarding the three ingredients ie. proof regarding identity of the purchaser, the creditworthiness to purchase the shares and the genuineness of the transaction

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

194 J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). 6. The assessee Company carried the matter in appeal before CIT (Appeals) and the Commissioner, CIT (Appeals) confirmed the view of the Assessing Officer and the appeals to that extent were dismissed. But other part of the allowing of the appeals was of the verification in the reduction

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE CIT (TDS), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

194 J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). 6. The assessee Company carried the matter in appeal before CIT (Appeals) and the Commissioner, CIT (Appeals) confirmed the view of the Assessing Officer and the appeals to that extent were dismissed. But other part of the allowing of the appeals was of the verification in the reduction

SMT LALITA GAUR,INDORE vs. ACIT 2(1) INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanilalita Gaur Acit-2(1) 196, Tilak Nagar Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ahzpg 7543C Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D Patwa. Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.12.2023

section 263 on 27.03.2015 and made the addition u/s 68 of the Act of the entire deposit of Rs.1,19,09,150/- and reduced the earlier addition of estimated profit of Rs.5,95,308/-. The assesse challenged the order of the assessment passed in pursuant to revision order u/s 263 before the CIT(A) but could not succeed

M/S. ARIHANT CHERITABLE TRUST,INDORE vs. THE ITO (TDS)-1, INDORE

In the result, we find no force in the ground of the Revenue, hence dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

section 194 J. Effective ground of appeal is decided in favour of the assessee.” [Emphasis Supplied] Arihand Charitable Trust Indore /ITANo.909/2019 1.9.5] The Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai Bench ‘D’ in the case of M/s Ruby Macons Ltd vs DCIT, Mumbai [ITA No. 4056/Mum/2008] has categorically held that: [Page No. 68

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

194 (MP)\nIn this case, adhoc disallowances @ 10% was made by the\nAO out of operating expenses, cost of material consumed,\nemployees benefit and other expenses debited to profit and\nloss account at Rs.3,79,85,854/- was deleted by Hon’ble\nTribunal and confirmed by their Lordships of High Court vide\npara 19 and 20 of the order. [Copies

AMIT ASHOK AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-2(2), INDORE

In the result, the quantum appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and penalty appeal of assesse is allowed

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

194,465.80 ₹ Trading of Shares payment 100,000.00 ₹ Cash-in-Hand withdrawn (Citibank) 1,033,000.00 ₹ Credit Card Bills Paid 266,820.40 ₹ LIC Paid (For Self & Family Members) 739,161.00 ₹ College Fees of Sister 75,000.00 ₹ Mutual Funds Subscribed 345,000.00 ₹ Misc Expenses 163,098.67 ₹ TOTAL 4,958,545.87 It would be clear from perusal of the above tables that

AMIT ASHOK AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-2(2), INDORE

In the result, the quantum appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and penalty appeal of assesse is allowed

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

194,465.80 ₹ Trading of Shares payment 100,000.00 ₹ Cash-in-Hand withdrawn (Citibank) 1,033,000.00 ₹ Credit Card Bills Paid 266,820.40 ₹ LIC Paid (For Self & Family Members) 739,161.00 ₹ College Fees of Sister 75,000.00 ₹ Mutual Funds Subscribed 345,000.00 ₹ Misc Expenses 163,098.67 ₹ TOTAL 4,958,545.87 It would be clear from perusal of the above tables that

SHASHI PRABHA SINGHANIA,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER NEEMUCH, NEEMUCH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

194/-\nThus, Long term capital gain of Rs.21,68,388/- is taxable and added to the\ntotal income.\n2.10 On verification of the computation of the income provided\nby the assessee it is seen that the assessee has claimed a loss of\nHouse property which is brought forward from earlier AY-2013-\n14 amounting to Rs.93,700/-. The assessee

SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

194 TTJ 338 (Visakhapatnam - Trib.) which leads us to a conclusion that penalty under section 271AAB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 is not automatic. 2.3.3] Further, it is also quite evident that the term ‘undisclosed income’ assumes significant importance for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 since penalty under this section

SUNAYANA INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD,INDORE vs. PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisunayana Investment Company Pcit-1, Ltd, Indore Part-B Of 417 Chetak Centre Annex, Vs. R.N.T. Marg, Near Hotel Shreemaya, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaucs5765M Assessee By Shri Sohit Gupta & Ms. Alifiya Ali, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.10.2024 O R D E R

194 to 205 of the paper book, whereby the A.O has made an addition of Rs.5,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act in the name of the assessee but under different PAN. Therefore, the said issue was not at all subject matter of the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 20.03.2022 but this