SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1),R-5, INDORE

In the result ground raised on merit as well as legal ground raised for not

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2015-16

section 234A and 234B of the Act. 5. The appellant reserves her right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by her. 3. From perusal of the above grounds we find that following two common issues have been raised :- 4 Smt. Shweta Agrawal & Anr ITA No.281 & 279/Ind/2019 (i) Genuineness of Long Term Capital Gain from

M/S. SANJAY ONKARMAL AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO-5(3) RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result ground raised on merit as well as legal ground raised for not

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2015-16

section 234A and 234B of the Act. 5. The appellant reserves her right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by her. 3. From perusal of the above grounds we find that following two common issues have been raised :- 4 Smt. Shweta Agrawal & Anr ITA No.281 & 279/Ind/2019 (i) Genuineness of Long Term Capital Gain from

SMT. MANISHA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4 (3), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 of the Act by treating it as unexplained cash credits without properly appreciating the facts of the case and 2 Hakumuddin Khambati & Anr ITA No.288 & 410/Ind/2019 submissions made before him more so when the appellant had filed ample documents so as to justify the genuineness of long term capital gain which were never disproved by the assessing officer

SHRI HAKIMUDDIN KHAMBATI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(4) RANGE-4, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

68 of the Act by treating it as unexplained cash credits without properly appreciating the facts of the case and 2 Hakumuddin Khambati & Anr ITA No.288 & 410/Ind/2019 submissions made before him more so when the appellant had filed ample documents so as to justify the genuineness of long term capital gain which were never disproved by the assessing officer

MEHI POWER TRANSFORMERS ,INDORE vs. DCIT-4(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimehi Power Transformers, Dcit-4(1), बनाम/ 74-J Industrial Estate, Indore Vs. Polo Ground, Indore (Pan: Aacfm0235H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sudhir Padliya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2025

68, 69 and 69A of the Act. 3. That Ld. CIT has erred in justifying the action of A.O. for charging interest as per provisions of section 234A

HARDEEP OBEROI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(5), INDORE

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2015-16

section 234A of Rs. 1,65,011 and 234B of Rs. 12,68,022 respectively. The interest so charged

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

234A, 234B and 234C. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming initiation of penalty u/s 271AAB. 6. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter any grounds of appeal as above.” 5. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR for assessee did not press/plead Ground No. 1, 5 and 6. Therefore, those grounds are dismissed

ZYKA MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act was also charged. 7. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). With respect to Grounds relating to the addition of ₹37,74,25,800/- on account of unexplained investment/share application money pending allotment, the learned CIT(A) noted that despite issuance

JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee before us are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act was also charged. 7. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). With respect to Grounds relating to the addition of ₹37,74,25,800/- on account of unexplained investment/share application money pending allotment, the learned CIT(A) noted that despite issuance

ZYKA MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act was also charged. 7. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). With respect to Grounds relating to the addition of ₹37,74,25,800/- on account of unexplained investment/share application money pending allotment, the learned CIT(A) noted that despite issuance

JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee before us are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act was also charged. 7. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). With respect to Grounds relating to the addition of ₹37,74,25,800/- on account of unexplained investment/share application money pending allotment, the learned CIT(A) noted that despite issuance

ZYKA MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act was also charged. 7. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). With respect to Grounds relating to the addition of ₹37,74,25,800/- on account of unexplained investment/share application money pending allotment, the learned CIT(A) noted that despite issuance

DHRUV NARAYAN SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO-2(3), BHOPAL

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

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidhruv Narayan Singh, Income Tax Officer बनाम/ E-2/192 Arera Colony, 2(3), Vs. Bhopal Bhopal (Pan: Aprps4102H) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1068530366(1) dated 10.09.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year

BABITA CHELAWAT,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed & the impugned order is set aside

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

68,161/-. The total income as per the return of income filed was at Rs. 15,37,355/- . The addition of Rs. 2,30,806/- was made as unaccounted income by virtue of para 8,9 & 10 of the aforesaid assessment order. That the aforesaid “Assessment order” is dated 24.09.2019 which is herein after referred to as the “Impugned Assessment

SUDHA LUHADIA,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE ITO - 4(5), INDORE, INDORE, M.P.

In the result, the impugned order is upheld

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisudha Luhadia, Indore The Ito-4(5), बनाम/ C/O S.V. Agrawal & Indore Vs. Associates, 25, Joy Builders Colony, Near Rafael Tower, Old Palasia, Indore (Mp) (Pan: Abapl5445M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

234A, 234B, 2340 of the IT Act are Charged as appropriate. Tax Charged at the rate prescribed u/s 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. Tax and interest are payable as per ITNS 150, which is a part of this order. Penalty proceedings Notice u/s 271AAC issued.” Sudha Luhadia ITANo.546/Ind/2025 2.3 That the Assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment

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

GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

234A, 234B and 234C; and (iv) also recorded to initiate penalty proceeding u/s 271AAB for concealment of income of Rs.49,99,000/-. Thereafter, the AO issued show-cause notice to assessee for imposition of penalty u/s 271AAB. In response, the assessee merely submitted that he has filed an appeal against 2 Gaurav Ajmera ITA No. 808/Ind/2024

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita