MOJILAL RAJPUT,SHUJALPUR MANDI vs. ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,97,139/- on which GP was @ 4.9% - as Rs.827860/- and net profit @ 1.37% to the tune of Rs.2,30,711/-. The assessee for the year under consideration also claimed exemption of Rs.54,135/- under Section 80C

ASHOK KUMAR MOONAT,RATLAM vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-3), INDORE, INDORE

section 68 to 69D r.w.s. 115BBE cannot be applied to his case. The assessee's reply is re-produced by AO in Para 5 / Pages 2 to 13 of assessment-order. However, vide Paras 6 to 8 of assessment-order, the AO rejected assessee's submission and taxed the surrendered income of Rs. 75,00,770/- relatable to excess

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

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

80C. The claim of 80D could not be verified. Further it is noticed that as per specific information available, the assessee has also made transaction with respect to Non-agricultural land having transaction amount of Rs.73,68,000/- which was effected on 08.01.2018. In view of the same, another letter was issued to assessee on 05.02.2021 for further clarification

SHRI PRABHAT SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

68 on account of loan taken from three minor children. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in maintaining the addition of Rs.9,38,756/- on account of disallowing of interest paid to bank on term loan and enhancing the interest income on term loan against FD to Rs.5,20,303/-. [ITA Nos.310 & 312/Ind/2015] [Shri Prabhat Sojatia & Shri Sunil

SHRI SUNIL SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE -2(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

68 on account of loan taken from three minor children. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in maintaining the addition of Rs.9,38,756/- on account of disallowing of interest paid to bank on term loan and enhancing the interest income on term loan against FD to Rs.5,20,303/-. [ITA Nos.310 & 312/Ind/2015] [Shri Prabhat Sojatia & Shri Sunil

SANJAY SAHU,BHOPAL vs. THE TH4E ITO 2(1), BYHOPAL

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2010-11 Sanjay Sahu, Ito 2(1), H.No.98-A Sector, Bhopal बनाम/ Kasturba Nagar, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Apyps1707D Assessee By Shri Shashank Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposit in his Savings bank account and therefore it is unjust, illogical and arbitrary and deserves to be quashed. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing officer