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

M/S RAS DEVCON PRIVATE LIMITED ,/, SANVID NAGAR, KANADIA ROAD, INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE, AAYKAR BHAWAN, OPPOSITE WHITE CHURCH ROAD, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed\nPronounced in open court on 19

sections": [ "253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "246A

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)

68 of the Act and tax is computed as per provision of section 115BBE of the Act. 3. That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “Impugned assessment order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A

GULABSINGH RAGHUWANSHI HUF,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE 2(5) , INDORE

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

sections": [ "253", "143(2)", "142(1)", "69A", "115BBE", "246A", "68", "139A", "234A", "234B", "234C" ], "issues": "Whether the assessee has adequately

LAXMI LAND DEVELOPERS P. LTD,.,INDORE vs. ITO-1(3), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshilaxmi Land Developers Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd, 1(3), Vs. 401-Atower, Indore 6/2 South Tukoganj, Indore

section 68. 6. In view of above facts discussed in preceding paras, the claimed loan amount taken during the year of Rs.12017416/- (inclusive of interest) from M/s Jay Jyoti India P. Ltd. and Rs 4709468/- from Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, total Rs 1,67,26,884/- is added to the total income of the assessee u/s 68

PRAVEEN AGRAWAL ,INDORE vs. DCIT 4(1) INDORE, INDORE

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

sections": [ "253", "250", "143(3)", "144B", "246A", "68", "57", "115BBE", "133(6)", "144" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) order

LATE SHRI RAMANAND TAPARIA TH/LH CHANDADEVI TAPARIA ,INDORE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTREQ, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

sections": [ "253", "1961", "147", "148", "143(2)", "142(1)", "271(1)(c)", "69", "246A", "69D", "68", "69A", "69B", "69C" ], "issues

SHAILESH KALWADIA (HUF),UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BPL-C(91)(1), BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT (A) who by the “Impugned Order” has dismissed the first appeal of the Assessee on the Page 2 of 9 SHAILESH KALWADIA (HUF) ITA No. 464/Ind/2025 & 160/Ind/2026 - A.Y.2013-14 grounds & reasons stated therein. The core grounds & reasons for the dismissal of the first appeal were as under:- “Submission of the appellant

SHAILESH KALWADIA (HUF) ,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BPL-C-(91)(1), UJJAIN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT (A) who by the “Impugned Order” has dismissed the first appeal of the Assessee on the Page 2 of 9 SHAILESH KALWADIA (HUF) ITA No. 464/Ind/2025 & 160/Ind/2026 - A.Y.2013-14 grounds & reasons stated therein. The core grounds & reasons for the dismissal of the first appeal were as under:- “Submission of the appellant

DCIT-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MANIDHARI JEWELLERS, BHOPAL

The appeal are allowed

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-3(1), Manidhari Jewellers, बनाम/ Bhopal Room No.202, Vs. Metro Walk Bulding, Bitten Market, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Pan: Abafm6546L) (Revenue) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 and is added back to the total income. The provisions of Page 20 of 35 DCIT-3(1) V/s Manidhari Jewellers ITA No. 533/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 section 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 are also invoked in this case. Penalty proceeding u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act is separately initiated. 2.13 That

SATISH KUMAR RADHESHYAM CHOUDHARI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) and who by impugned order at para 3.4 has observed and avered as under:- “3.4 During the course of appellate proceedings, it is seen that while the impugned order sought to be challenged in this appeal was passed on 21.03.2022 and the appeal has been filed only on 08.01.2024 i.e. after 658days

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

LATE SHRI RAMANAND TAPARIA TH/LH CHANDA DEVI TAPARIA,INDORE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

68 (cash credits),\nSection 69A (unexplained money), Section 69B (undisclosed\ninvestments), Section 69C (unexplained expenditure), or\nSection 69D (amount borrowed or repaid on hundi). The\nAssessing Officer can make additions under any of these\nsections, if applicable, in addition to Section 69.\nThe burden of proof lies on the assessee to prove the identity,\ncreditworthiness, and genuineness

ARP SECURITIES LIMITED,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

sections": [ "253", "250", "147", "144", "144B", "68", "148", "142(1)", "246A", "148(2)", "153A", "143(3)", "271(1)(c)" ], "issues

ANIL BHAWANI,INDORE vs. ITO - 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

sections": [ "139", "143(2)", "142(1)", "143(3)", "68", "10(38)", "246A", "250(6)", "254" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) was justified

MINAKSHI COTEX,BARWANI vs. ACIT/DCIT , KHANDWA

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical\npurpose

Bench: SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI PARESH M JOSHI (Judicial Member)

68,630/- in his assessment order u/s\n143(3) of the Act dated 24/12/2019 is hereby confirmed.\n6. 1. In the result, the appeal is \"dismissed.\"\n3.\nRecord of Hearing\n3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on\n23.09.2025 when the Ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee\nappeared before us and interalia contended

KHOZEMA BOHRA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the total income of the assessee during the relevant year under consideration and taxed by invoking the section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at the rate of 30%. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of (Addition Rs.23,00,000/-income.” 2.2 That

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

246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the grounds and reasons stated therein. The core ground being that the assessee has not filed any documents in support. It is also recorded in the “impugned order” that 3 opportunities were afforded to the assessee to substantiate