SHRIAMIT AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO WARD 1(3), INDORE

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Amit Agrawal Ito, Ward-1(3) बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abrpa 2105 L Assessee By Shri S. N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2023

section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of alleged investment in Plot No. 5A as made by the appellant without properly appreciating facts of the case.” 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case- records perused. 3. Briefly stated the facts are such that the Ld. AO received an information from

DHANRAJ DISTRIBUTORS (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT (1), INDORE

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

68; (iii) disallowance of Rs. 28,000/- out of telephone, vehicle maintenance and depreciation; and (iv) disallowance of Rs. 20,000/- out of office, conveyance and travelling expenses. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal wherein the CIT(A) granted part relief by deleting the addition of last item of Rs. 20,000/-. Subsequently, vide penalty-order dated

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), UJJAIN (STATIONED AT INDORE), UJJAIN vs. M/S. JPJ EXIM (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Section 68 namely identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction that supporting evidences filed by the assessee. The assessee further submitted that the share application money was received by the assessee from various individuals/HUFs in the Financial Year 2010-11 and there were being allotted with the shares in the Financial Year 2011-12 who are having valid

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

5a). That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs.1,50,00,000/- made by the AO in the appellant’s income, on account of alleged unexplained cash credit under s.68 of the Act in respect of certain unsecured loans appearing in the audited balance

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

5a). That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs.1,50,00,000/- made by the AO in the appellant’s income, on account of alleged unexplained cash credit under s.68 of the Act in respect of certain unsecured loans appearing in the audited balance