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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INCME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SWARNA SUKH, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and \"impugned order” is upheld

bogus and had made the aforesaid addition. However, the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal returned findings of fact to the contrary. The Tribunal also noted that the departmental representative could not challenge the factual finding recorded by the Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals). Nor could he advance any substantive argument in support

PRIME CONSTRUCTIONS,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2018-19

Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee thus assessment order is without jurisdiction and void-ab-initio. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition to the extent of profit element in the alleged bogus purchases

POONAMCHAND NARAYANDAS SOONI,KHIRKIYA vs. ITO-2, HARDA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradpoonamchand Narayandas Income Tax Officer -2, Sooni, Harda Main Road, H. No.26, Vs. Khirkiya, Madhya Pradesh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabfp3619H Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.08.2024 O R D E R

income at Rs.19,87,116/-. 3.1 Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and so far as the issue of unexplained sundry creditors of Rs.17,92,976/- he confirmed the action of the Ld. A.O. 3.2 Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 3 Poonamchand Narayandas Sooni 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee apart from referring

JAI PRAKASH SHAHANI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradjai Prakashshahani, Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S Jai Prakash Impex, Nfac, Delhi Vs. 73, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Apqps7948G Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025

addition survives but still for academic purpose we would deal with the merits of the case also. I find that the charge levelled against the assessee was for escapement of income to the tune of Rs.1,94,07,890/- for bogus purchases

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

purchases from such\nsuppliers who are either Non Filer(s) or have filed non business\nITR or reflected a substantially lower turnover in\nKriti Nutrients Ltd.\nITA No. 780/Ind/2024\nA.Y. 2021-22\nPage 23 of 107\nITR as compared to turnover shown in GSTR 1 return There\nis a possibility that assessee has booked bogus expenses in\norder to reduce

HIMANSHU BOTADEARA HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

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

addition has been made by the AO for a sum of Rs.4,06,860/- u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on the report of the Kolkata Investigation Wing that the assessee has availed accommodation entry of bogus long term capital gain from purchases

HIMANSHU BOTADEARA HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

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

addition has been made by the AO for a sum of Rs.4,06,860/- u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on the report of the Kolkata Investigation Wing that the assessee has availed accommodation entry of bogus long term capital gain from purchases

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

addition in the hands of persons and a person who has provided the funds for being invested as share capital in bogus names. It is a fact that the earning of income to the extent indicated by Shri N.P. Panjwani and surrendered in the hands of company has not been proved by Shri N.P. Panjwani with reference to any proof