AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

bogus and they have been used as a conduit to inflate the purchases. Ld. A.O also observed that related/sister concerns are involved in this round manner of purchases in which sister concern of the assessee has sold study material to various sellers from whom assessee has shown purchase and money received from such supplies is again routed back to sister

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

bogus and they have been used as a conduit to inflate the purchases. Ld. A.O also observed that related/sister concerns are involved in this round manner of purchases in which sister concern of the assessee has sold study material to various sellers from whom assessee has shown purchase and money received from such supplies is again routed back to sister

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

bogus and they have been used as a conduit to inflate the purchases. Ld. A.O also observed that related/sister concerns are involved in this round manner of purchases in which sister concern of the assessee has sold study material to various sellers from whom assessee has shown purchase and money received from such supplies is again routed back to sister

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OIL LTD. , VILLAGE KHEDA, PITHAMPUR

In the result, all the three grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed and ITANo

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2012-13 Dcit(Central)-1 M/S Prakash Oil Ltd. Village Indore Kheda, Pithampur, बनाम/ Distt:Dhar Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aabcp8087G

income had made the addition for suppressed sales. 13. We further observe that Ld. CIT(A) after going through the submissions made by the assessee as well as documentary evidences filed in support of genuineness of purchase and the proof of movement of goods held the purchase with M/s. Unique Enterprises as genuine and deleted the additions for bogus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE vs. FERRO CONCRETE CON INDIA PVT. LTD., INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Ferro Concrete Con India Income-Tax Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ 3/5/7B, Bhagirathpura Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaacf2726K Revenueby Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Date Of Hearing 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026

Income-tax Vs. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd. (2025) 172 taxmann.com 283 (Bombay) recently approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2025) 180 taxmann.com 790 (SC) in Judgement & Order dated 21.11.2025, the AO disallowed 100% of bogus purchases but in first-appeal, the CIT(A) upheld addition

SMT. SARITA CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), 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

bogus, not entire amount covered under such purchases but profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax. 6.If the purchases are rejected, the sales would also be reduced. The goods of the appellant are subject to excise. Quantitative details were given with the return of income (alongwith Auditor's report in Form No. 3CD). To illustrative the quantitative data

LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA L/H SHRI PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), 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

bogus, not entire amount covered under such purchases but profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax. 6.If the purchases are rejected, the sales would also be reduced. The goods of the appellant are subject to excise. Quantitative details were given with the return of income (alongwith Auditor's report in Form No. 3CD). To illustrative the quantitative data

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

bogus, not entire amount covered under such purchases but profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax. 6.If the purchases are rejected, the sales would also be reduced. The goods of the appellant are subject to excise. Quantitative details were given with the return of income (alongwith Auditor's report in Form No. 3CD). To illustrative the quantitative data

RAJVEER LEAF SPRINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,PALDA. INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT- 4(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshirajveer Leaf Springs Dcit/Acit-4(1), बनाम/ Private Limited, Indore Vs. D-405, Shubh City, Palda, Indore

income filed was at Rs.2,90,304/-. The addition on account of bogus purchase u/s 69C was at Rs.4,62,63,870/-. Some

S GANDHI JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18 S. Gandhi Jewellery Pcit-1, Private Limited, Indore C/O Adv. Hitesh Chimnani, बनाम/ Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18, South Tukoganj, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aamcs1613G Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

addition of Rs. 19,37,500/- equivalent to 12.50% of alleged bogus purchase of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- while completing assessment of re-opened case vide order dated 29.03.2022 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B and thereby re-assessing total income

THE ACIT, -2(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. SHRINIWAS BOARD AND PAPER PVT. LTD., UJJAIN

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11 Dcit 2(1), M/S Shriniwas Board & Ujjain Vs. Paper Pvt. Ltd, 68 Industrial Area, Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue) (Respondent ) Pan Aaccs7555D Revenue By Shri K.G. Goel, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Date Of Hearing 27.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 01.04.2019 O R D E R

income at Rs.22,66,320/- Following three additions were made; (i) Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(3)(ii) Rs.9,71,271/- (ii) Bogus purchase

HAMID HUSAIN,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiito-4(1), Hamid Husain, बनाम/ Bhopal 369, Kaji Camp, Vs. Gali No.3, Near Sindhi Colony, Berasia Road, Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Hamid Husain, Assessment Unit, बनाम/ 369, Kaji Camp, Income Tax Department Vs. Gali No.3, Near Sindhi Colony, Berasia Road, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

bogus purchases is hereby added to the income of the assessee and penalty proceedings under section 270A of the I.T. Act are also being initiated separately for under reporting of the income. (Addition

INCOME TAX OFFICER -4(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. HAMID HUSAIN, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Income Tax Return for\nthe A.Y. 2021-22 despite of having huge transaction with the assessee and\nare not existing at their addresses, which clearly prove that the assessee has\nshown bogus purchases to decrease the actual profit.\n\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in\nreducing the said additions

SANGITA LALWANI,ITARSI vs. ITO 1, ITARSI, ITARSI

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisangita Lalwani, Ito 1, बनाम/ Gali No.03, Sindhi Colony

additions on account of explainable purchases as involving bogus purchases based on Investigation reports of Income tax department itself without

MATHARLAL MUNGALAL AGRAWAL,KHANDWA vs. THE ITO, KHANDWA

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

income of Rs. 69,490/- which was subjected to scrutiny proceeding u/s 143(3) of the Act and the Ld. AO completed assessment after making an addition of Rs.31,49,684/- on account of bogus purchases

M/S SHREE BALAJI LANDMARK HOTELS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blea.Y. 2011-12 M/S Shree Balaji Landmark Hotel Private Limited Indore ::: Appellant Vs Acit 3(1) Indore ::: Respondent Appellant By Shri Pankaj Shah Respondent By Shri K.G. Goyal Date Of Hearing 4.6.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 8.6.2018 O R D E R Per Shri Manish Borad, Am

income filed for the assessment year 2011-12 on 30.9.201. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed after making few additions totaling Rs. 3,55,150/- which, inter alia, included addition towards bogus purchases

DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KALYAN TOLL HIGHWAY PVT.LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit(Central)-2 M/S. Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt. Ltd. Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadck9401F Appellant By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

income in respect of bogus claim of purchase expenses of Rs.1,83,32,038/-. 7. We note that during the A.Y. 2013-14 assessee has capitalized certain amount towards a project cost which was subject to depreciation from A.Y.2015-16 onwards. There was an issue of claim of bogus purchase of bitumen at Rs.1

KISHAN RAM VISHNOI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are partly allowed in terms mentioned\nabove

additions to income on account of bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions for 100% of the purchase value