THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 providing for admissibility of electronic records as evidence have not been followed. The appellant has also placed reliance on certain decisions wherein on identical facts, similar addition made have been deleted. The appellant has also challenged the addition made on protective basis on the contention that the said amount was already added

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 providing for admissibility of electronic records as evidence have not been followed. The appellant has also placed reliance on certain decisions wherein, on identical facts, similar addition made have been deleted. 4.2.2 After considering the observation made in the assessment order and also taking into consideration the written submissions

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 providing for admissibility of electronic records as evidence have not been followed. The appellant has also placed reliance on certain decisions wherein, on identical facts, similar addition made have been deleted. 4.2.2 After considering the observation made in the assessment order and also taking into consideration the written submissions

SANJEEV AGRAWAL ,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and it is\npertinent to note that the alleged i-phone was not impounded during the\ncourse of survey proceedings.”\nGround No. 1:\n4. This ground is general; covered by other specific grounds and no\nseparate submissions have been made by parties. Therefore, it does not\nrequire a separate adjudication from